Jump to content

Covid 19


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, RFguy said:

I got Astra a month back . I'm 50

I think the best I heard was about life-jackets

Astra/Pfizer comparison, like being on a sinking ship, and there are two brands of life-jacket, and one lif-ejacket is known to have a failure rate of 1 in a million.  and people are worried about the 1 in a million faulty lifejackets and wont put those on.... 

Delta R0 is between 5 and 10.... that's the problem. I'm in CBR and currently holding off my 2nd shot of astra to try and get to 7 to 8  weeks between shots  to maximise effectivness. currently I am 4 weeks in from the 1st. No COVID n canberra yet.. yet, YET  but it is creeping down the freeway, and as soon as it appears, in the next two weeks, I will pull the trigger on the 2nd shot.


 

Don't wait. As soon as you're eligible, get the shot. Apparently peak resistance occurs about 40 days after the second one.

I saw an interview with a woman who lost her husband (in the US) they weren't ant-vaxx but were waiting to see which one had the least side affects. While they were waiting, hubby got the bug and died from it. Now she has a Go Fund Me to try to pay the medical bills.

 

BTW, I've started calling Delta The Republican Mutation after the numerous morons in the US who are ant-vaxx, ant-mask, anti- social distancing, anti-lockdown ... basically anti-everything to keep them safe.

Don't like me calling them "morons"? What else do you call someone who gets their medical advice from politicians and Rupert Murdoch?

Edited by cscotthendry
  • Like 5
  • Agree 3
  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly Glen.  But it’s worse than that.  My 25yo son was up snow skiing a few weeks ago...and working up there.  A group of young 20 something women came in to the shop and refused to put on face masks because, ‘we’re vaccinated, we don’t need to’, obviously not realising that vaccination only reduces transmission and reduces susceptibility.  My fear is exactly that....the vaccine will encourage risky behaviour and the outcome will be worse, particularly so given the R0 of the Delta strain..  Linking vaccination rates to ‘freedoms’ encourages such behaviour.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Markdun said:

Exactly Glen.  But it’s worse than that.  My 25yo son was up snow skiing a few weeks ago...and working up there.  A group of young 20 something women came in to the shop and refused to put on face masks because, ‘we’re vaccinated, we don’t need to’, obviously not realising that vaccination only reduces transmission and reduces susceptibility.  My fear is exactly that....the vaccine will encourage risky behaviour and the outcome will be worse, particularly so given the R0 of the Delta strain..  Linking vaccination rates to ‘freedoms’ encourages such behaviour.

A lot of people wouldn't be aware that having the vaccine protects them, but not the people they mix with who can die because of their carelessness.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the "Live Free or Die" true believers still exist in the millions in the U.S. - and continue to "infect" with their beliefs, the stupid sections of our population, who worship "The American Way" - we are still going to struggle to confine outbreaks. I guess at least we still have inviolable laws to jail and fine the idiots - unlike a number of the U.S. States who think that abiding by laws infringes on their personal freedoms.

 

One can only hope that Darwins law of Natural Selection ensures the American idiots finally die out, and their toxic and ill-founded logic dies with them.

 

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Unlike-elsewhere-New-Hampshire-refunds-COVID-business-fines-41566356

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the benefits of Lockdown/Contact Tracing with electronic contact training/electronc checkin.

There will be more new cases, but most likely tucked away in isolation, so we can open earlier thanks to the alogorithms.

 

image.thumb.png.40d70ccb7d4757a1147535115a5ed49e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with Turbo on this one

  • The vaccine protects me from severe illness (much lower risk)
  • A mask protects others from me if I'm infectious (lowers the risk)
  • Extra cleaning and sanitizing protects everyone (lowers the risk)
  • Staying away from people altogether protects both me and them (removes the risk)

As the only thing that removes the risk is total isolation we will have to work out as a society where the risk level can sit and be acceptable to the population. 

 

Personally not terribly happy with the actions/words/behavious of out politicians who are currently representing the population in this but I would not fancy that job so I will grit my teeth and wait until next I have a vote on who they are to provide my feedback to them.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gov(s) need to allow service providers, of all sorts, to refuse entry/service to those who are not vaccinated and/or refuse to wear a mask.

 

As I understand the law at the moment, someone offering a public service (shop/trades person/etc)can not refuse entry/service ,as this is viewed as discriminatory behaviour. While I agree with the principal, there are times, this is one of them, when service providers should not be expected to put themselves/family/friends/acquaintances in danger because some 1/2 wit doesn't want to wear a mask/be vaccinated.

 

On the question of forced vaccination - I am against forcing someone to do the right thing for themselves/family/friends/acquaintances.

 

I am all for protecting myself, my family & friends, society in general. from the anti vaxxers. In my mind this would come about by the Gov(s) legislating to force employers (perhaps an amendment/addition to the OH&S legislation) to have, as a condition of continued employment, all staff dealing face to face with the public vaccinated. No jab, no position that requires interacting with the public - their choice is being respected  but it, like many decisions in life has consequences. (Add in the above  - service providers empowered to refuse service)

I would extend this to travel /in/out of Australia.

 

I heard some brain dead polly talking about this today - completely against any form of negative/withdrawal of privileges ,consistence for anti vaxxers. He felt that the whole idea was a breach of individual rights/determination. This is despite a host of legislation/precedence where the population is required, by law, to do/not do certain things that are clearly a breach of an adults right to self determination.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skippy, it should be a carrot and stick approach. There are consequences to every action in our lives - but the anti-vaxxers, or Live Free or Die crowd, simply need the consequences of their chosen actions spelt out to them.

Many seem to have a problem grasping the principle of actions and consequences - just as many immature teenagers do - and they need to have it spelt out to them in written form, and be made to acknowledge their chosen course, and the likely consequences.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

The Gov(s) need to allow service providers, of all sorts, to refuse entry/service to those who are not vaccinated and/or refuse to wear a mask.

 

As I understand the law at the moment, someone offering a public service (shop/trades person/etc)can not refuse entry/service ,as this is viewed as discriminatory behaviour. While I agree with the principal, there are times, this is one of them, when service providers should not be expected to put themselves/family/friends/acquaintances in danger because some 1/2 wit doesn't want to wear a mask/be vaccinated.

 

On the question of forced vaccination - I am against forcing someone to do the right thing for themselves/family/friends/acquaintances.

 

I am all for protecting myself, my family & friends, society in general. from the anti vaxxers. In my mind this would come about by the Gov(s) legislating to force employers (perhaps an amendment/addition to the OH&S legislation) to have, as a condition of continued employment, all staff dealing face to face with the public vaccinated. No jab, no position that requires interacting with the public - their choice is being respected  but it, like many decisions in life has consequences. (Add in the above  - service providers empowered to refuse service)

I would extend this to travel /in/out of Australia.

 

I heard some brain dead polly talking about this today - completely against any form of negative/withdrawal of privileges ,consistence for anti vaxxers. He felt that the whole idea was a breach of individual rights/determination. This is despite a host of legislation/precedence where the population is required, by law, to do/not do certain things that are clearly a breach of an adults right to self determination.

Half the problem with this is that people can't comprehend a disconnection between the Government and the people making the health decisions, so we see these democratic rights claims from thousands of people, yet if you are admitted to hospital and someone orders you to put your arms out and don't be a baby, you do it, or tells you not to go in that room, you don't do it, yet somehow you become one of about 12 million new Australian Health Professionals with Covid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skippy and One track,

 

One thing most general population do not appreciate (and I lump nearly all politicians in this group) is that you can fill you boots under Australian law.

Everything is LEGAL unless made illegal by a recognized law - be that a statute from a parliament or a common law recognized/created by courts.

 

In line with that no discrimination is illegal unless made so by law and thoise laws generally only apply to the provision of goods and services and cover specific grounds. 

People may find discrimination on legal grounds unpleasant, immoral or distasteful but it does not make it illegal.

 

So

  • unless there is a law there is no requirement to get a vaccine
  • unless there is a service provision AND it is within the grounds for illegal discrimination there is no illegality in a service provider requiring a vaccine or proof thereof the provide a good or service to a person
  • unless there is a law there is no requirement to wear a mask or isolate 

 

On the first two I am not aware that there is a law. 

On the third I am aware that there are public health directives and I am personally happy to abide by them without proof of the legal basis on which they are based.

 

Not all people are like me and will accept a restriction without the letter of the law - if it looks about right, is coming from a person in a recognized position of power and makes sense to me I am likely to do it, at least initially, because that is about right for a society.

 

Locally where I live there is a retail food business where ALL the staff refused to wear masks in work and ALL claimed medical exemption from mask wearing and ALL claimed privacy of medical records to not have to disclose to police on multiple occasions.  Technically legal but a bit fishy ... especially as they were berating customers who came in wearing masks during the week the police kept coming back and asking them to wear masks ... and the kicker is that one customer they berated was an off duty police officer ... 

The courts can work out the legitimacy of the fines when they return to court later this month but I suppose technically its within their rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

I heard some brain dead polly talking about this today

Name that person so they can be voted out next election.

 

Shepparton Preserving Company have laid it on the line - no vax, no job. No canned virus from SPC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted in a meme here or on the other forum, if you :-

 

drive without a seat belt,

ride a motorcycle without a helmet,

use your mobile phone while driving,

drive at night without headlights,

 

you will get fined. All of those could be considered restricting your freedom.

Why not also for not wearing a mask?

 

Here's another way to look at it.

 

If you go out in the ocean in a small boat (go out in public), there is a chance you could capsize or fall overboard (catch the virus). If you wear a lifejacket (wear a mask, get vaccinated) it may not prevent you capsizing, but you are less likely to drown (die or require hospitalisation) than if you don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view the chant and hysteria about ‘antivaxers’ is about as rational and anti-science as the extremes of many antivaxers.  Ditto for attaching ‘rights’ to vaccination, unless there is a significant public benefit, like, for example herd immunity.  But, but but....with this Delta variant with a high R0 and the efficacy of the current vaccines....that is not going to happen.  So a vaccinated person might be 50% less likely to spread the virus....why would this be sufficient to gain added rights?  The better argument is the one about mandatory bicycle helmets....vaccinated people are less likely to require hospitalisation.....(keep in mind that the majority of hospitalisations in the UK are now vaccinated people....that will happen here too when vaccination rates increase, but the principle still holds that there would much more hospitalisations for unvaccinated...about 10 fold).  
Again, attaching ‘rights’ or privileges to vaccination risks achieving the opposite....you might get a higher vaccination rate, but if those privileges result in more risky behaviour the 50% reduction in transmission might not be achieved.

 

Giving employers the rights to demand medical procedures for employees is frightening.  Many already seem to have the right to prohibit employees from engaging in political debate.  Will this be extended to demanding female employees be sterilised or have a depo insert so the employer can avoid maternity leave, or that  people not be members of particular political parties, or even telling people how to vote.  It’s just another progression towards corporate feudalism.

 

Anyway, we are all doomed.  Climate change is progressing unabated, recent studies are predicting the Gulf Stream will stop within a decade.....so it’s looks like it’s going to be a slow version of that terrible story, ‘On the Beach’.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kasper said:

Skippy and One track,

 

One thing most general population do not appreciate (and I lump nearly all politicians in this group) is that you can fill you boots under Australian law.

Everything is LEGAL unless made illegal by a recognized law - be that a statute from a parliament or a common law recognized/created by courts.

 

In line with that no discrimination is illegal unless made so by law and thoise laws generally only apply to the provision of goods and services and cover specific grounds. 

People may find discrimination on legal grounds unpleasant, immoral or distasteful but it does not make it illegal.

 

So

  • unless there is a law there is no requirement to get a vaccine
  • unless there is a service provision AND it is within the grounds for illegal discrimination there is no illegality in a service provider requiring a vaccine or proof thereof the provide a good or service to a person
  • unless there is a law there is no requirement to wear a mask or isolate 

 

On the first two I am not aware that there is a law. 

On the third I am aware that there are public health directives and I am personally happy to abide by them without proof of the legal basis on which they are based.

 

Not all people are like me and will accept a restriction without the letter of the law - if it looks about right, is coming from a person in a recognized position of power and makes sense to me I am likely to do it, at least initially, because that is about right for a society.

 

Locally where I live there is a retail food business where ALL the staff refused to wear masks in work and ALL claimed medical exemption from mask wearing and ALL claimed privacy of medical records to not have to disclose to police on multiple occasions.  Technically legal but a bit fishy ... especially as they were berating customers who came in wearing masks during the week the police kept coming back and asking them to wear masks ... and the kicker is that one customer they berated was an off duty police officer ... 

The courts can work out the legitimacy of the fines when they return to court later this month but I suppose technically its within their rights.

 

Australia is also full of backyard lawyers.

A few weeks ago we were having a discussion about the various Acts we are operating under with our States of Emergency, and I mentioned there were the basic Acts, State of Emergency Acts, and started to check them out, but decided to forget about after I found about four interlocking Acts, temporary sunsetting Regulations, directives etc in one State let alone the other States and Territories, and that's before I got to the appointments of responsible people, shared responsibilities etc.  What we may have relied on and worked to since 1958, can be radically changed with the declaration of a State of Emergency and again with a State of Disaster.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOE is a very dangerous tool  for the grubby lunatics in charge!

We will need to change our national anthem soon, remove the 'one & free' bit, we are now a very divided nation fighting each other no longer 'free' but living under draconian tyranny heading for social destruction!

  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Federal Govt has had the power to make any decisions it sees fit, when it comes to National Security, and this has been in the Australian Constitution since Jan 1., 1901.

Some of the power invoked under the National Security provisions during WW2 would make some people today blanch, if they took time to read about it - such as the resumption of land and buildings (including homes) with no notification, to build airstrips for War purposes.

 

This happened at Temora in 1942, and landholders were poorly informed, and poorly compensated - and many had to wait until well after WW2 was over, to receive their poor compensation.

Many landowners at Temora didn't even know their land was being resumed until they found military forces cutting and dismantling their fencing. Then they were advised they had 48 hrs to vacate their homes.

Vehicles in new or near-new condition were confiscated from civilians on the spot, for military use in 1942.

Many of these vehicle owners who depended on their vehicle for their living were immediately deprived of their living, and many had little choice but to join the military to regain some form of income.

The fact remains, that at that time, we were on a full-scale War footing, and under threat of foreign invasion. We are at War today, but the enemy today takes a different form.

 

The bottom line is that States are still individually responsible for their Health Security arrangements, and the Federal Govt does not hold absolute power over the States under this legislation.

We have had the National Health Security Act in place since 2007, and this legislation was put in place with all the States approval, and this legislation still does not over-ride the States governing powers.

 

However, declaring a State of Emergency or a State of Natural Disaster is available in virtually every country in the world - including the Land of the Brave and Free.

It should never be used to ride roughshod over citizens basic rights, though - but in some severe situations, some people are going to lose a lot more than others, when it comes to Govt decisions.

 

It's up to the Govt of the day to ensure the personal losses under Emergency or Disaster decisions are ameliorated as evenly as possible. In the present circumstances, that is not happening, and the greatest unfairness is showing up in the corporate largesse by the Govt in the form of the Jobkeeper payments to companies that didn't even need it - yet many of whom won't return the payments, preferring to use them to reward senior management and shareholders.

This is where the greatest political decision concern should be directed to the Govt.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00048

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, and that’s why people need to be engaged with politics and vote in representatives not party hacks, and why we need the States....to prevent the concentration of power in one government.  And also why we should be cautious of Morrison’s rebadged ‘Council of Australian Governments’ in the form of ‘National Cabinet’ which purports to bind the States/Premiers and could undermine the Premiers and State Government’s sovereignty and accountability to the people of the States through their respective State parliaments.  It’s the State parliaments that are the bosses of the States, not the Prime Minister.

 

Irrespective of the various ‘emergency acts’, in a real emergency courts are prepared to find that common law over-rides legislation.  Hence, a motorist who refused to comply with a police officer’s direction to go down a one-way street the wrong way to not get in the way of firefighters fighting a fire was found guilty despite the fact the police officer’s direction was for the motorist to commit an offence.  So I’m not sure whether the emergency acts do or don’t give more unaccountable power to the executive.  It is true the High Court in WWII did give the federal government a huge amount of power to deal with the war.

 

The question is, have we already had a coup without really knowing it?

  • Caution 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Markdun said:

And also why we should be cautious of Morrison’s rebadged ‘Council of Australian Governments’ in the form of ‘National Cabinet’ which purports to bind the States/Premiers and could undermine the Premiers and State Government’s sovereignty and accountability to the people of the States through their respective State parliaments.  It’s the State parliaments that are the bosses of the States, not the Prime Minister.

I haven't seen any sign of a Council of Australian Governments, just a description of a National Cabinet and no suggestion whatsoever of any binding or undermining of State sovereignty. the States are Sovereign States each with their own Governor so about the only way Scomo could do it, would be to invade them all with the Commonwealth Defence Forces, and I hesitated to write that just in case there are 10,000 soacial media posts belting him becaose he hasn't invaded Danistan etc. 

 

I wouldn't like to see us lose that National Cabinet because it puts all the leaders in the same place at the same time and they can beat each other and the Commonwelath up in open discussion and come out with a unified stance instantly.

 

I've spent 40 years trying to get common transport regulations so we can carry a semi trailer load from Cairns to Perth without having to reduce the payload by 20% or having the truck deregistered on the way through. We achieved commonality in 1975, but only for a few months. Finally, about ten years ago it was decided to have a lead State process the regulations, debate them and pass them through its two Houses, then all other States and Territories would mirror those regulations. I thought it would take aout five or six people, because there weren't all that many irregularities, but first they Mirrored Queensland Transport in staff numbers nd now they are out to around 800 people, and we have less commonality than we had before 1975. I'd prefer a National Cabinet discussing about four regulations a year.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Markdun said:

 

Irrespective of the various ‘emergency acts’, in a real emergency courts are prepared to find that common law over-rides legislation.  Hence, a motorist who refused to comply with a police officer’s direction to go down a one-way street the wrong way to not get in the way of firefighters fighting a fire was found guilty despite the fact the police officer’s direction was for the motorist to commit an offence.  So I’m not sure whether the emergency acts do or don’t give more unaccountable power to the executive. 

From what I read the other night there are State of Emergency Acts, and then there are Acts to cover urgently needed actions which have been going through the Parliaments with bipartisan support, some including the words Covid, so I suspect actions carried out under them would be legal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Turbo I don’t know where you have been the last few decades.  COAG has been around since at least the late 1980s.  Partly this was to make funding arrangements from the Commonwealth to the States more transparent, but also under COAG there were (are) various ministerial councils to better co-ordinate State laws across the country.  That’s why there are model consumer law, food law, and road code, extradition of criminals from one state to another state etc etc etc  They provide a framework to some extent for national consistency with each State/territory diverging when they see that is better for them.  The minutes of COAG were public documents.  Each member of COAG was an Australian government...all nine of them.   Morrison’s ‘national cabinet’ trashed all this.  The only saving grace is that the State premiers have stood up against him.

 

And you seem to be confused about how laws are made.  National Cabinet is nothing more than a secret discussion group, with ScuMo making an announcement after.   It has no formal power....it’s just a discussion group...like COAG, but secret. For laws to be made each State parliament still has to enact them, or a State Governor still has to make the regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Markdun said:


Arron....you are on to something.  Look at the USA where they have not approved the ‘EU’ vaccine (AZ) but have approved the US vaccines.  You would be surprised how commercial interests are able to promote and ‘market’ a research paper without being seen to be doing so when that research benefits that company.  Too often scientists are ignorant of this.  There is a great book titled ‘Manufacturing Consent’ that deals with this.

When Pfizers profit increases 92% in a single quarter you can bet they are playing all the political cards they can find to maintain that momentum. You can't let a European upstart in especially when their vaccine can be stored in the fridge so doesn't need minus 70 deg C and is one tenth of the cost. Nooo we will make sure the press gets every bit of news that is bad about this and make sure it never gets approved here.

 

Meanwhile the UK & Europe are open about the facts and temporarily suspend AZ use for a while. But it is the mainstay of the UK vaccination programme & they have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. You can also bet Pfizer are downplaying the reports on 29 July of Pfizer having a similar blood clot risk & paying as much as necessary to stop it being published in the Lancet.

 

https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-similar-to-pfizer-spanish-study-finds

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-pfizer-covid-jab-study-1127179

 

It is a pretty cynical view I know but one thing that is pretty hard to dispute is that Big Business runs US politics.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Markdun said:

Well Turbo I don’t know where you have been the last few decades.  COAG has been around since at least the late 1980s.  Partly this was to make funding arrangements from the Commonwealth to the States more transparent, but also under COAG there were (are) various ministerial councils to better co-ordinate State laws across the country.

(a) COAG's too slow

(b) Agree, but I wonder why we have finished up with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator which is buiding Insepection Stations in places like country South Australia, and holding up Victorian Operators for a week before people in Queensland can work out if its safe to provide a permit for an overdimensional load to travel from Traralgon to Leongatha.

11 hours ago, Markdun said:

 Morrison’s ‘national cabinet’ trashed all this.  

This is an informal group of people with no powers as a body to trash anything; just gives the state and territory leaders a common meeting to take back to their cabinets.

 

11 hours ago, Markdun said:

 

And you seem to be confused about how laws are made.  National Cabinet is nothing more than a secret discussion group, with ScuMo making an announcement after.    

 

For laws to be made each State parliament still has to enact them, or a State Governor still has to make the regulations.

I'm confused? That's exactly what I've been saying with the exception of the sarcastic description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...