CLEANER AIR COLLECTIVE SUBMISSION

TO THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT REVIEW

The case to address ongoing discrimination of unsafe indoor air quality that prevents Australians living with the intersectional disability of chronic illness and immune dysfunction from participating fully and safely in public life.

Cleaner Air Collective (CAC) is an Australia-wide grassroots health advocacy group with more than 380 members from diverse backgrounds & professions; our membership includes healthcare workers, teachers, lawyers, economists, engineers, creatives, academics, data specialists, disability advocates, parents & students. Many of us have serious underlying conditions, or have family members who do, some have long COVID, most need to access healthcare regularly.

This submission focuses on question 50 (how can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit for purpose into the future?) and question 51 (are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?). Our perspective on this review is that there are more of us who need to be added to the currently defined cohort living with disability and a greater understanding of the new discriminatory barriers to public participation that Australians face in 2025.

There is consensus amongst CAC members that the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and its Standards no longer reflect the current environment in which we live, nor do they adequately address contemporary challenges that were not present when it was written, 33 years ago. Definitions need to be extended to reflect new groups of Australians who face barriers to taking part in public activities or attending public venues. New barriers to public participation must be considered. Just as those in wheelchairs used to face stairs with no ramps to support access, now clinically vulnerable Australians face venues with unsafe air, with no accommodations to provide safe access. This is a contemporary health challenge which has created such a significant barrier to public life that many are currently trapped in their homes, in individual lockdowns that have no end in sight.

Extended definition of disability

The DDA needs to expand its definition of disability to be more inclusive and reflective of contemporary health challenges, some of which were not even recognised when the legislation

A modern DDA needs to include a new intersectionality: the growing ccohort who are living with the hidden disability of debilitating chronic illness combined with immune dysfunction, for whom safe access to participating in public life is out of reach without support and accommodations. An updated DDA should address the need to make public life more inclusive and safe for those at high risk of poor outcomes from omnipresent, airborne infectious diseases. It should be noted that the lived experience of this chronically ill, immunocompromised cohort must be considered with their other intersecting identities, including gender, age, race, sexual orientation, which increase complexity and compound discrimination.

Immune dysregulation covers a wide spectrum including:

autoimmune diseases, where the immune system mistakenly attacks the body’s healthy tissues, cells and organs, causing damage (eg lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, Raynaud’s disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis);
immune suppression where the person is prescribed immunosuppressive medication to inhibit the immune system (eg to treat autoimmune disease or cancer or to prevent the body from rejecting a transplanted organ);
and disruption of the immune system post COVID-19 infection with immune cell exhaustion and reduction leading to a weakened immune response.

Due to the perceived negative connotations and othering of the words “disabled” and “disability”, there is often a disconnect or reluctance to use the terms. Some Australians in the cohort described above may not describe themselves as disabled or living with disability, despite experiencing disability discrimination in attempting to participate in public life. “Health status” or “at risk” could be more neutral, less politicised descriptor options.

Extended understanding of discrimination/barriers to public participation in an era of ubiquitous airborne infectious disease

It has taken years, but it has now been clearly established that COVID-19 is transmitted through the air, floating like smoke and we breathe it in, like other airborne pathogens such as influenza, measles, respiratory syncytial virus, tuberculosis and chicken pox. Since 2020, the world has experienced pervasive and ongoing waves of airborne, infectious disease, all year round. This has created a new, significant barrier to participation in public activities for those at added risk of poor outcomes from infection, including severe illness, hospitalisation, ongoing chronic health issues and death. There is now a notable cohort of Australians who face discrimination in trying to safely access public venues and activities because of their higher risk level. They cannot safely access indoor public spaces without accommodations such as improvements in IAQ or masks. This is especially important in healthcare; it is ironic that clinically vulnerable patients are being infected with airborne diseases while seeking care, with some dying from these Hospital Acquired Infections (HAIs).

It is important that the accommodations needed to make public indoor spaces safe for all, should be integrated in a proactive manner. Accommodations, legislation and protocols need to be embedded in the health system and preferably in all public buildings, not reliant on individual advocacy from those living with disability. We fully support the concept of creating a proactive duty of care to prevent discrimination, rather than expecting individuals to address discrimination individually. This is especially true given the current burden of proof of discrimination which itself is a barrier to public accessibility and weighs too heavily on those who are least able to carry it.

We are establishing the case for an extended definition of those living with disability and an extended understanding of how new forms of discrimination have arisen, such as poor Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) and the prevalence of serious, airborne pathogens. It is important to demonstrate the many ways that the cohort of chronically ill, immune dysregulated Australians are currently experiencing daily discrimination, which prevents them participating fully and safely in public life. The following case studies are not all inclusive, but attempt to illustrate the myriad of new ways that public access has become out of reach for many Australians in recent years.

Disability Discrimination Case Study 1: safe access to healthcare

It is well established that COVID-19, a level-3 biohazard, is airborne, as are many other infectious threats such as RSV, influenza, measles and tuberculosis. COVID-19 moves through the air like smoke and we breathe it in. In healthcare, aerosol generating activities are not limited to procedures like intubation, extubation or using a nebuliser. Anything that moves air through the respiratory tract is an aerosol generating activity. Healthcare workers (HCWs), patients or visitors who are breathing, talking or coughing are moving air through their respiratory tract and therefore moving aerosols.

Confirmed airborne transmission of COVID-19 means it’s in the air in the emergency department, it’s in the air in the waiting room, it’s in the air in all areas of hospitals & isn’t restricted to high risk clinical settings or procedures.

Hand hygiene protocols are inadequate and not fit for purpose in protecting against airborne infectious diseases. Current focus on handwashing as a reliable way to reduce the spread of COVID-19 is like saying if someone starts smoking nearby, washing your hands or wiping surfaces would get rid of the smoke. COVID-19 is airborne; airborne strategies are needed.

It is an issue that must be considered in setting NSQHS standards that too many patients who test positive for COVID-19 while in hospital actually contracted it while in hospital. In the state of Victoria, 15–25% of patients in hospitals with COVID-19 between June 2022 and June 2023 aquired their infection after admission, with 90-day mortality of 18.9% compared with 12.3% among matched patients who did not acquire COVID-19 post admission.

Patients are especially medically vulnerable in healthcare settings. COVID-19 is exceptional and healthcare is an exceptional setting: COVID-19 is exceptional in terms of potential chronic disability and loss of life, health, quality of life, and ability to be financially independent. Healthcare is an exceptional setting with the most medically vulnerable population, with the greatest risk of dying. Hospitalised patients are different from non-hospitalised populations, failing to protect them from preventable negative health outcomes that are due to their higher risk levels is discriminatory. At the end of this submission, we have included a number of powerful and often shocking quotes from chronically ill, immune dysregulated, at-risk Australians about their experiences when they are forced to attempt to access unsafe public healthcare venues.

The challenge is clear, care is not efficient or quality when it repeatedly infects patients and HCWs with airborne infectious diseases in healthcare settings. Airborne Hygiene cannot be an individual choice when health consequences and costs are so high. The opportunity is to create a national standard of Airborne Infection Prevention and Control (IPC), a prevention investment which will provide consistency across the country, benefiting staff and patients and reducing increasing care costs to the government.

As reported in the Saturday Paper, “The national guidelines on preventing and controlling infection in healthcare settings formally acknowledge the virus (COVID-19) is airborne. In August (2023), they were amended to remove droplets as a transmission method. The guidelines specify that P2 or N95 masks should be worn”.

It is clear that Airborne Hygiene is a health standard so vital that it should not be left up to individual HCWs, hospital administrators or even state or territory politicians (none of whom are leading experts in IPC) to set. Australian Associate Professor in Atmospheric Chemistry, Robyn Schofield explains, “[currently] It’s up to every hospital to navigate that and, of course, they don’t have the multidisciplinary team that they require to do that. And there’s no real leadership, I would say, and policy guidance around that.” The current situation results in inappropriate and ineffective standards that are inconsistent from one healthcare facility or region to the next, causeing costs to increase and patients to die. What is required is a national proactive duty of care based on scientific evidence.

Our current IPC choices in Australian healthcare are outdated, ineffective and inconsistent across the country. It’s well established that COVID-19, a level-3 biohazard, is airborne as are many other serious, infectious threats. It is time to take urgent action to set national standards of care for Airborne Hygiene in all hospitals, both in preparation for ongoing and future airborne pandemics, and to prioritise the ongoing safety and wellbeing of all patients seeking care in public healthcare venues. Far from being a restriction, it is a vital protection standard. Anything less is a catastrophic, discriminatory failure of risk assessment and duty of care.

It is time to catch up to the latest scientific evidence, accept the inconvenient health challenge of airborne transmission of infectious disease and take proactive steps to adequately prevent it. It is essential this opportunity is tackled now because the alternative is the slow collapse of a

Source Page 5

health system already buckling under the pressure of continuously increasing costs, staff shortages and increased demand for care.

COVID-19 and other airborne respiratory HAIs are preventable infections, leading to preventable patient deaths and preventable HCW absenteeism and chronic disability, and putting preventable stress on a health system which is already in crisis. Recognising and adopting a new standard of care will future proof the country’s unprotected, at risk healthcare workforce and unprotected, medically vulnerable patients, an investment against current costly infections and future pandemics.

Hospitals have a duty of care to patients and an obligation to provide employees with a safe working environment. Our recommendation is an opportunity to show leadership in updated infection prevention and control, and improve a whole range of outcomes for patients, HCWs, the community, the government and the health system itself.

As Dr Monique Ryan said in her powerful statement in Federal Parliament:

“The Australian Charter of Healthcare gives all Australians the right to safe, high quality healthcare. Our National Cabinet promised to protect the vulnerable from the COVID-19 pandemic. This promise has not been kept.

There are no longer any legal requirements for healthcare workers to wear protective masks. All pandemic orders have now expired. Chronically ill, disabled and elderly Australians can avoid restaurants, shops and travel to protect themselves from Covid, but they have no choice about accessing healthcare where they are now at risk - high risk - of hospital acquired infections.

If you go to hospital for something unrelated to Covid but you are infected with it while in hospital, your risk of dying from it is one in 10. This is more than 50 times the community mortality rate for Covid. It is an unacceptable & unnecessary risk.”

It is a fair, reasonable and proportionate response to this new threat to medically at risk Australians to wear respirators in healthcare to protect those living with disability from highly infectious (and often asymptomatic), airborne diseases such as influenza, COVID-19, RSV, tuberculosis and measles. It must be taken into account that the stakes are high: people with disability are at higher risk of poor outcomes including severe illness, hospitalisation, chronic health issues and death.

The best response would be to institute a positive duty of care to improve the prevention of discrimination: a national respirator protocol to make hospitals safely accessible to all. This could be modelled on the existing hand hygiene protocol with standards, education, compliance audits and public awareness campaigns. An immediate interim measure would be to create a nationally consistent duty of care that all healthcare workers must wear a mask if requested by the patient or patient’s family, or if noted in the patient’s file.

It is worth noting that it is entirely possible to provide safe access to healthcare, but currently, without a formal, legislated duty of care, it takes a well informed and articulate individual to advocate for this. The following quote is exceptional, most Australians are not well informed or confident enough to achieve this.

“Determined to have safe treatment, I contacted the hospital executive pre-admission for planned surgery. I advised that I would be requiring ALL staff interacting with me in any way to wear a N95. Also, that I did not consent to be placed in an unsafe environment in the vicinity of ANYONE with obvious respiratory symptoms I advised I would bring my own HEPA filter & required it to be turned on at all times. Also, my N95 was to be secured in place anytime I was unable to do so myself- ie under sedation/ anaesthetic.

Several interesting phone calls later, I was assured my requests would be complied with. They allowed my husband into recovery to ensure mask compliance. I was placed in a single room (my CO2 monitor readings made it clear I was breathing the same recycled air as everyone else on the ward - so my mask stayed on 24/7). Everyone walked on eggshells. But it worked!! There ARE laws which protect us & those of us with the ability to push the system need to draw the line in the sand on behalf of everyone.”

This lived experience of an Australian patient shows clearly that it is possible for the healthcare system to protect those at greater risk and that it takes extraordinary measures from an individual to achieve this. The burden of responsibility for removing the barriers to safe healthcare must not be on the shoulders of those least able to assume it, it must be a national, consistent standard which prevents discrimination to those unable to advocate for themselves.

Disability Discrimination Case Study 2: equitable access to vaccination

The Health Minister has a positive duty of care to provide access to vaccination to all citizens. Preventing a cohort of Australians from accessing the only vaccine they can medically tolerate (approved and safely in use around the world) for years now, is discriminatory, dangerous and a moral failure.

There are thousands of Australians, most of whom are at high risk of poor outcomes of COVID- 19 infection, who have had no access for more than 18 months to the only COVID-19 vaccine for which they are medically eligible: Novavax (current version JN.1). Other mRNA COVID-19

Source Page 7

Vaccines are medically contraindicated for these individuals, with severe side effects, allergic reactions, exacerbations of existing conditions and life threatening adverse outcomes. Many in this cohort are chronically ill and/or immune dysregulated and at higher risk of poor outcomes such as severe illness, hospitalisation and death if infected while waned. At the time of submitting this document, Dr Monique Ryan, federal member for Kooyong, has published a series of 10 questions on notice for the Health Minister regarding this specific failure to provide access to vaccination (which have not been answered yet).

To be clear, a significant cohort of Australians who have the “disability” of being unable to medically tolerate mRNA vaccines, has the significant barrier to public participation, of the government failing to approve, procure and distribute an easily available and appropriate vaccine since January 2024 when remaining supplies of the original Novavax formulation expired. Novavax’s updated XBB.1.5 and JN.1 vaccines, both approved in multiple comparable jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union, were submitted to the TGA, but ultimately withdrawn without approval or explanation. All attempts by this medically vulnerable cohort to advocate to the Health Minister, the Health Department and the TGA have been ignored for several years now with no explanation, no transparency and no responsibility taken. This is a clear case of discrimination, however when an individual approached the Australian Human Rights Commission to ask about making a complaint about this situation, they were rejected.

There is currently no transparency around vaccine procurement and distribution, so it is unknown if and when Australians will ever have access to Novavax again. Will a cohort of “disabled” Australians for whom mRNA vaccines are medically contraindicated be permanently unprotected by the ongoing threat of COVID-19 and permanently excluded from the vaccine protection enjoyed by the rest of the population which enables safe participation in public life?

This is a public health emergency, especially considering rising levels of Long Covid and common sequelae of repeated reinfections (including heart attack, strokes, diabetes, dementia) which will cost the health system and the economy dearly in the longer term. The Health Minister himself has made public statements that “vaccination remains the most important measure to protect against the risk of severe disease from COVID-19” and promising “a diverse portfolio of vaccines [providing] Australians flexibility of choice and [enabling] the government to address variants of concern in the future”. Yet he has failed to take action to expedite approval and distribution of an available option which would assure equitable vaccine access to all Australians, including those discriminated against by current vaccine availability.

The Australian government’s failure to procure Novavax XBB and JN.1 is an inclusion issue, depriving a vulnerable population of timely access to medically tolerated vaccine protection, putting safe access to public spaces out of reach as well as potentially endangering lives and causing unnecessary severe illness, hospitalisation and deaths.

Disability Discrimination Case Study 3: safe access to education

Any Discussion of the New Impact of Unsafe Indoor Air Quality

Any discussion of the new impact of unsafe indoor air quality in public spaces must include education and the discrimination of children with disability who have the right to thrive in safe learning environments, but who are currently unprotected from poor outcomes from airborne infectious disease transmission at school. Children don’t merely have the right to education, but the right to SAFE ACCESS to education. Children shouldn’t have to risk their health, quality of life and future for their education. The right to education must sit alongside children’s fundamental rights to life, health, and safety, all of which have been besieged in educational settings.

While parliamentarians at state and federal levels enjoy the safest air through upgraded ventilation and filtration (discussed further in Positive Duty of Care Case Study 2 below), high density classrooms facilitate unmitigated transmission of a myriad of infectious diseases, causing constant waves of serious illness and educational absences for students. We should not tolerate severe illness, chronic disability and deaths when our children could be better protected through an available vaccine and the implementation of national Indoor Air Quality standards. Instead of tolerating the ongoing discrimination of children with higher risk and medical vulnerability due to underlying medical conditions and immune dysregulation, education settings must take responsibility for the health and safety of these children. Anything less is discriminatory.

We have the tools to provide a positive duty of care and prevent this discrimination. Providing sufficient ventilation has been shown to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases by up to 80%. Improving air quality has been shown to have a significant positive impact on the health and well-being of students and staff, improving the overall learning environment and learning outcomes. It will reduce the disruption of both student and staff absenteeism due to illness as well.

HEPA filtered air purifiers improve air quality because they capture particles such as dust, pollen, bacteria, mould and pet dander (which can aggravate allergies and asthma) in a filter. They also capture viral particles, including COVID-19. By installing these purifiers in classrooms, hallways, and other common areas, schools can greatly reduce the risk of airborne disease transmission and prevent discrimination against students and staff at higher risk. CO2 monitors help to ensure classrooms are properly ventilated because high levels of CO2 indicate poor air quality and a lack of fresh air, which can lead to fatigue, headaches, and other health problems. By installing these monitors, ventilation issues can be detected and addressed before they become a major problem. Other measures that would further protect children at school include Public Health education campaigns and provision of rapid antigen tests with a requirement to test and isolate, which can help identify cases early and prevent them from sparking an outbreak. In addition, the distribution of free but fully optional N95/P2 masks to students and staff can help reduce the risk of transmission.

Australian experts have testified to the unsafe conditions in Australian classrooms, and it is disheartening that the government has not acted on their evidence-based recommendations.

Disability Discrimination Case Study 4: the poor IAQ barrier to access and inclusion

The new barrier to being able to safely participate in public life is the danger of shared air in indoor public spaces. Poorly ventilated public indoor spaces are now preventing medically vulnerable Australians from accessing public activities once taken for granted. This new discrimination puts the burden on the person with disability to try and ameliorate their disproportionate health risk themselves, which is unrealistic, ineffective and unfair compared to improving IAQ universally which would provide a positive duty of care to all. IAQ is now just as much an accessibility issue as wheelchair ramps.

In reviewing the DDA and Premises Standards, there is an opportunity to include IAQ accessibility standards for public spaces including healthcare, aged care, education, public transport and workplaces. This will lower the risk of poor health outcomes and make the air in these spaces safe to breathe for everyone. Anything less is denying universal safe access to participation in public life for people with the intersectional disability of chronic illness and immune dysregulation.

Disability Discrimination Case Study 5: the growing threat to the right to mask to protect

health

It is deeply troubling to the members of CAC that there is proposed legislation before the Victorian parliament to ban masks being worn for medical purposes at public protests. This is flagrant discrimination being considered as law. The Victorian Liberal Party has recently introduced a bill into parliament which includes a ban on face coverings in the vicinity of public protests. The proposed legislation states that a person participating in a public protest must not wear a face covering. It does include a religious exemption, but no medical exemption and includes penalties of $6000 fine or imprisonment for three months.

This legislation would not only be a barrier to the right to protest for all Victorians who wish to protect their health in crowded public spaces, but is the start of a concerning slippery slope. What if legislators move on to say that face coverings should be banned on public transport for safety purposes? What if retailers and entertainment venues follow suit and ban masks on their premises? This is not hyperbolic speculation, we have had reports of such discriminatory behaviour from around the country already:

“I was asked “what’s up with the mask?” by a retail shop owner and then told “never come back to my shop” because we “look dodgy.”

“My 16 - year-old son was told to remove his mask or not be allowed to catch the bus.”

Positive Duty of Care Example 1: Belmore Road Medical Centre

We already have the tools to make public venues safely accessible to all. An excellent example of this is the Belmore Road Medical Centre in Melbourne’s Eastern suburbs. The clinic is run by GPs who understand the need for good IAQ to protect patients and staff alike. The Director of the clinic wrote a submission to the Covid Response Inquiry describing the accommodations made:

“We continue to provide the highest standard of infection control with self-funded building modifications to allow fresh air ventilation, HEPA filters & CO2 monitors in every space and an ongoing mandate for masks to be worn by staff, doctors and patients. It is no longer a concern simply for Covid-19 transmission, but other increasingly prevalent airborne pathogens.”

It is an ordinary suburban GP clinic offering what needs to be standard airborne protection: a commitment to better layered protections & clean air. The clinic includes information on its website; when a patient makes an appointment there are messages about mask requirements; the waiting room has open windows regardless of the season and a wall replaced with open louvres to improve air flow; the mask mandate is respected by every patient and staff member; the air is cleaned by HEPA air purifiers in every room; and air quality is measured in real time by CO2 monitors in every room.

This is gold standard accessibility and proof that it is possible and should be an expected standard in all public venues, especially in healthcare.

Positive Duty of Care Example 2: Parliament House (Federal and State)

There is one Australian venue category that was quick to recognise and invest in the importance of improving IAQ: parliament. Our politicians have enjoyed the highest quality indoor air for years now, although most schools and aged care residences have been neglected. It is important to note that it is possible to quickly create a new standard if leaders are motivated and it is important to question why that accommodation to safe access to public spaces is not universal.

COVID-19 was not publicly recognised as airborne by the World Health Organisation until April 2021. As a result of this delay, the importance of safeguarding air quality & ventilation has been overlooked in the Australian pandemic response. However, there was a significant exception: both Federal and State parliamentarians have enjoyed high IAQ in their respective workplaces, Parliament House, for years now. For example, in August 2021, the NSW Premier upgraded the NSW Parliament House ventilation system to ensure “100% fresh air inflow” and “8 exchanges of fresh air in chamber per hour”. Federal Parliament House has a minimum setting of “outside air supply of 10 litres per second per person”; recycled air passing through a bank of filters; automatic monitoring with alerts when levels are outside the appropriate range; and “increased fresh air intake to the greatest extent possible while maintaining the building climate”.

All public indoor spaces should be made equally safe and accessible. All Australians should enjoy the same privilege of breathing safe indoor air as their elected representatives who have looked after their own workspaces, but have failed to extend that protection to the rest of the population.

One final observation we would like to make is that we have noticed that the Standards are hard to find, outdated and fail to support access to public life in 2025. They also need to be reviewed and updated. Reviewing the DDA will fail if the Standards are not also addressed.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. We would appreciate any opportunity to participate in any further consultation or round tables on efforts to rectify discrimination which is preventing many Australians from safely and fully participating in public life.

Suzanne Jennings Co-founder, Cleaner Air Collective

Attachment A: Quotes from chronically ill, immune dysregulated, at risk Australians about lack of safe access to healthcare

“My 83 year old mother was taken to emergency because her medications (Parkinsons & pain) were not well managed. She had never had Covid before and had been living in her own home. She was kept in a corridor for a few days until a bed became available and then she was moved to the ward. No masks anywhere (except us). I asked whether I could put an air purifier in her room and was told “no”, she was moved to another ward and again I was told “no” to the air purifier because she was going to be moved to a shared room. She stayed in a shared room for a day or two and was moved back into a single room.

A few days later they had a Covid outbreak in the ward and my mother tested positive to Covid. Suddenly there were air purifiers in the ward and everyone wore full PPE. Covid made her Parkinson’s symptoms worse, she lost her ability to walk unassisted and started to have memory issues so she could not come back home. She was transferred into care. She declined rapidly (physically and cognitively) after that. She died early on 26/5/2024. The place that should have kept her safe, ended up killing her.”

“My oncologist said I could remove my mask because the local ICU had spare beds.”

“I had a friend who went into a NSW hospital for what should have been routine surgery, but she caught Covid in hospital (was vulnerable because swine flu had done some damage earlier) but she left hospital with COPD, and when she got a second infection on a plane, she was hospitalised and died on a ventilator.”

“Determined to have safe treatment, I contacted the hospital executive pre-admission for planned surgery. I advised that I would be requiring ALL staff interacting with me in any way to wear a N95. Also, that I did not consent to be placed in an unsafe environment in the vicinity of ANYONE with obvious respiratory symptoms I advised I would bring my own HEPA filter & required it to be turned on at all times. Also, my N95 was to be secured in place anytime I was unable to do so myself- ie under sedation/ anaesthetic.

I advised if these measures WERE NOT PUT IN PLACE AND I contracted ANY airborne pathogen within known incubation periods of my admission, I would exercise ALL remedies at my disposal. In relation to this, I referenced my rights under: - The Australian Charter of Patient Rights The Workplace Health & Safety Act Qld, The Code of Conduct for all registered health Professionals with AHPRA, and The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Infection Prevention and Control. The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Action could include complaints to OHO Workspace, and/or civil litigation. Several interesting phone calls later, I was assured my requests would be complied with. They allowed my husband into recovery to ensure mask compliance. I was placed in a single room (my CO2 monitor readings made it clear I was breathing the same recycled air as everyone else on the ward - so my mask stayed on 24/7). Everyone walked on eggshells. But it worked!!”,

There ARE laws which protect us & those of us with the ability to push the system need to draw the line in the sand on behalf of everyone.”

“I asked the receptionist if the doctor would mask when booking the appointment. She said “we don’t need to mask anymore” and when pressed, said that I could just as easily catch it at the supermarket, as if it’s okay to get infected by the GP. I can get my groceries delivered, but I don’t have a choice but to go to the doctor.”

“My elderly grandmother was in hospital for an operation. A patient a few doors down was known to be COVID positive. I ensured that my grandmother was wearing a N95. When the consultant came to visit, she asked why on earth we were wearing masks and told my grandmother she didn’t need to wear one. It was done in an extremely dismissive way. It felt very discouraging given the strong power dynamic.”

“I go to a DBT day program every week and in the confirmation text, they directly state not to come in with cold/flu symptoms. Last week, there was someone who had COVID 2 days prior, was still showing symptoms and refused to wear a mask. When I expressed my frustration to the reception, explicitly stating that I am disabled and many other people are, they brushed it off saying that everyone is sick, it’s winter.”

“My 91-year-old mother was having major abdominal surgery for bowel cancer. None of the nurses were wearing any masks, and my mother was too ill to wear one. One nurse, noticing me wearing my N95 mask, said to me and my mother ‘Oh, we all have to get Covid sometimes’ in a very flippant manner. Luckily, my mother recovered without contracting COVID-19. It was an appalling experience to think of how much she was enduring and how easily she could have lost her life or at least her ability to continue to live independently.”

“My mum, extremely frail and battling a fierce infection in her colon and blood cancer, caught C19 in hospital in December 2022. There were known cases on her ward and still some staff regularly wore their masks on their chins or pulled them down to talk to her. She was moved to a separate ward once she tested positive but I felt that little care was taken to limit spread through the hospital. She passed not long after she was discharged.”

“I caught covid in hospital because they refuse to clean the air and I left sicker than when I went in.”

“Staff were pulling their masks down during a mask mandate in the same room as patients who were vulnerable and next thing I know my parent got Covid. They had mild symptoms initially, went into respiratory failure, survived, but succumbed to long Covid a few months later.”

“After speaking with managers and having my request for COVID safety refused, I took masks in for all the nurses on the recovery ward and begged the nurses to help me stay COVID safe when I came out of surgery. Instead, I was wheeled into a crowded ward with unmasked staff and a coughing nurse with a runny nose standing right next to me. I had to keep my own mask

on for the entire recovery period and refused oral fluids to keep myself safe. And in a big COVID wave too.”

“I am a blood cancer patient on a drug trial. There are zero airborne virus mitigations in place at all: No fresh air ventilation, no standalone filtration, no UVC, effectively no masks by HCWs (only the occasional surgical) and rarely any masking by patients.”

“I am immunocompromised and was exposed to visibly sick staff while in hospital.”