The Reality of Living in Australia and Covid

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

And then there is cottaging. HR or Najad or one of them caused much ribald mirth in an YM or YW editorial in the 1980s when they placed a full page add stating that one of their yachts was ideal for cottaging. Something well and truly lost in translation.

And good to note that the Wikipedia piece on cottaging notes the commitment of Alan Jones - Australian radio broadcaster, coach of rugby union teams, and right wing nutter - to the pursuit of the activity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_J...io_broadcaster)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

And good to note that the Wikipedia piece on cottaging notes the commitment of Alan Jones - Australian radio broadcaster, coach of rugby union teams, and right wing nutter - to the pursuit of the activity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_J...io_broadcaster)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging

Well bugger me -as the actress said to the bishop much to her immediate discomforture - why aren't I surprised!

Meanwhile the contact site I mentioned at my doctors isn't on its own. Last Wednesday/Thursday a heap of them have turned up on the list through this bit of the North East.
This is going to get ugly.

Lockdown ? we don't do lock down, Vietnam does lock down.
This is where you simply don't leave home and the military delivers your food.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...-chi-minh-city

[Seaworthy Lass]

The situation in Australia disturbs me tremendously.

Several countries have temporarily limited indoor recreational activities to those vaccinated or to those who have recovered or tested negative. Australia has now moved WAY beyond this.

For a vaccine that only reduces symptoms and transmission it is an unprecedented move to mandate vaccination in order to receive an education or to work, as is being done for widespread professions in Victoria. It also goes directly against the principle that freely given and informed consent is needed for medical procedures and above all that this is needed for clinical trials. As no long term data is available: “The vaccines are only provisionally approved for use in Australia and are accordingly still part of a clinical trial”.

A very interesting document has been released by the Fair Work Commission (Australia’s national workplace relations tribunal) on an Australian government website. Most of it discusses a specific case related to flu vaccination, but Part 2 goes on to discuss mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (item 101 onwards).

These were the final comments:

“[179] Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are ‘vaccine-hesitant’ are well educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility.*37 A far safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent. It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation. It certainly does not lie in the use of highly coercive, undemocratic and unethical mandates.

[180] The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and should be “locked out of society” and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health. They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID. These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated. If the purpose of the PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. Conversely, a vaccinated person who contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.

[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds. It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts when challenged.

[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.

[183] Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if it a person is not allowed to question it.

[184] Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding “anti-vaccination sentiments”, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and not followed by others.”

————————————

I find the attitude expressed by CF members towards some of those questioning vaccination policies absolutely abhorrent. Name calling, insulting comments, being told they are not welcome to join in discussions.

From media reports this does not seem unique.

I can only hope this is fear driven. We act out of character when stricken by fear and this has been drummed completely out of proportion into the Australian population by state premiers, their health advisors and by the media. It is unwarranted. “Around 87% of those who have died with COVID in Australia are over 80 years old and had other pre-existing illnesses listed on their death certificates.” “The World Health Organisation has stated that most people diagnosed with COVID will recover without the need for any medical treatment.”

Vaccination will not stop COVID-19. It is widely accepted it is endemic. Everyone both vaccinated and unvaccinated will probably catch the disease multiple times over the next few decades. It is now emerging that infection confers even stronger immunity than vaccination (and a combination the best immunity of all) so lack of vaccination will in the near future not be an issue regarding immunity.

For all the Aussies here, please think deeply about all the above comments. We should be fighting to oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia not cheering it on.

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/dec...u69NGffURbod38

All the quotes in italics given above are from the article.

SWL

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

The situation in Australia disturbs me tremendously.

What in particular?
That we have bugger all cases and most of us can still do pretty much as we like?

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

The situation in Australia disturbs me tremendously.

SWL

My doctor just the other day said that the worry was not a few old buggers popping their clogs but 'long covid' which is a very real thing.

I'm fretting over the situation in Burkino Faso.

If you are really concerned fly home and have a chat with Scotty- if you can find him

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

... I'm fretting over the situation in Burkino Faso...

What is so troubling about conditions, in Burko Fasso?
[not arguing, just expect I’m missing something]

Burkina Faso has had 445 New Cases, and 12 New Deaths in the past 30 day; compared to record highs of 3,975 new cases, and 35 deaths, both in January, 2021.
In the past week, they’ve had 137 New Cases, vs a Record high of 1,184 in Dec. 20–Dec. 26, 2020.

Burkina Faso ➥ https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/burkina-faso

[Wotname]

Just to be clear - is there not (or was there not) a push in the UK, Europe and the USA for the general population to 'get vaccinated'? The published vaccination rates in those countries seem to confirm this.

If so, why should Australia be different; in fact due the previous 18 months of strongly suppressing the virus, Australia should be strongly encouraging vaccinations as there is no natural immunity from previous inflection.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

The situation in Australia disturbs me tremendously.

Several countries have temporarily limited indoor recreational activities to those vaccinated or to those who have recovered or tested negative. Australia has now moved WAY beyond this.
.............

Have we, I wasn't aware.

I have heard a lot gum flapping by various politicians but nothing has morphed into concrete AFAIK. If it like most of the pollie talk, there is a large chasm between what they spout and what eventuates.

BTW, I do agree in principle with the Fair Work Commission comments you posted.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Just to be clear - is there not (or was there not) a push in the UK, Europe and the USA for the general population to 'get vaccinated'? The published vaccination rates in those countries seem to confirm this.

If so, why should Australia be different; in fact due the previous 18 months of strongly suppressing the virus, Australia should be strongly encouraging vaccinations as there is no natural immunity from previous inflection.

There is a big difference between "strongly encouraging" and mandating vaccinations.


SWL makes a very articulate, very strong argument, which makes me think.


Although I'm you might say even a professional libertarian (former teach of Constitutional Law in law schools), I have not been nearly so much troubled as SWL about this particular issue and she helps me to see that I am strongly biased in favor of vaccination because I don't personally see any rational basis to not want to get vaccinated, even for someone who is low risk.


But this is really bias and so what SWL says is really worth listening to. Not sure I agree with it, but she makes a lot of good points.


Society has a strong interest in people getting vaccinated. In the U.S., which otherwise has a pretty good system of protected constitutional rights, the states (not the federal government) have a clear right to force people to get vaccinated, as established in a landmark Supreme Court case which is still valid law (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)). Not just mandate vaccination as a condition of employment in certain industries, etc., but simply force everyone to get vaccinated and even put them in jail if they refuse.


The reason for this is that our jurisprudence recognizes a strong public interest in vaccination in times of pandemic which trumps individual right to refuse.


Nowadays this kind of balancing of individual versus social rights is done in a different way (in "heightened scrutiny" cases, where a significant individual right is concerned, a law restricting that right must be in furtherance of a "compelling interest" of society as a whole, and must be "narrowly tailored" to further that interest.


Interestingly, in the Nordic countries, lockdowns ARE considered unacceptable infringements of individual rights, definitely unconstitional in Finland and Sweden, and strongly condemned by the health authorities of Norway and Denmark. In Norway, the health authorities made a statement, when the government inquired whether lockdowns should be considered, that lockdowns are human rights violations, and of no proven value in controlling the pandemic, and strongly condemned them.


Different attitudes in different parts of the world.

[HeinSdL]

Given the system we have created for ourselves it is actually hard to disagree with getting vaccinated en-masse because this is what will allow us to get back to our desks, back onto our manufacturing stations, back into aeroplanes, restaurants, etc.

The system more or less demands of all of us to participate in economically relevant activities, and not only that, we should be doing more of everything as time goes on. Without this growth (the main theme of organisations such as the IMF and the Worldbank) it will become tough to service the debt mountain and eventually the whole show will collapse onto itself.

So anything to prevent us from doing what the system demands of us will be stamped out by whatever means necessary, including, in our current predicament, biological.

However, the system should not actually demand anything of us. In fact we should demand of the system that we are able to live healthy & meaningful lives and the system should be designed around those needs. Any arguments based on economic growth are simply red herrings and need to be discarded. But they're not so we continue on our current path of self destruction.

(Fun fact: how many years to double economic activity with an annual growth of 3%, which is kind of considered to be the sweet spot by economists? And to quadruple? Compare that with our current rate of resource depletion whereby already today we need 2 Earths)

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

... (Fun fact: how many years to double economic activity with an annual growth of 3%, which is kind of considered to be the sweet spot by economists?...

About 23 years.
The “rule of 70" is a way of estimating the time it takes to double a number based on its growth rate.
Number of Years to Double = 70 ÷ Annual Rate of Return
70 ÷ 3 = 23 1/3 years
Some economists refer to the "rule of 69" or the "rule of 72." These are just variations on the rule of 70 concept.

[tanngrisnir]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

A very interesting document has been released by the Fair Work Commission (Australia’s national workplace relations tribunal) on an Australian government website. Most of it discusses a specific case related to flu vaccination, but Part 2 goes on to discuss mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (item 101 onwards).

You have fallen foul of looking for what you want on the internet.

The FWC Decision you are quoting paragraphs from is All about unfair dismissal. Kimber was dismissed and sought to appeal. The appeal was denied by the majority and it's all done and dusted by para 61 , the appeal was refused.

What you are quoting is part of the reasoning of the minority for not supporting the decision.

Since the decision was release it has caused quite a stir because the reasoning of the minority includes a bunch of stuff that is totally irrelevant to the decision, i.e everything from para 101. Some of the minority sources are newspaper articles which don't stand up to fact checking themselves. It will take weeks to unpack it all.

Meanwhile Kimber is attempting to go the the Federal court seeking Jurisdictional error. If it get a hearing there then at least the outcome will be applicable across the whole country. Just to be clear, it is not about vaccination rather if the particular dismissal was lawful or there has been an error in the application of the law.

Interesting case actually, lots of mistakes on both sides.

[tanngrisnir]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But this is really bias and so what SWL says is really worth listening to. Not sure I agree with it, but she makes a lot of good points.

So, this is why I keep reading this thread. There has been some really interesting and challenging discussion. I acknowledge I have the same pro-vaccination bias, but I acknowledge other people have different biases and concerns. I thank you all for your contributions, even the occasional wack job popping in just to show there is a lot of diversity of opinion out there.

SWL has brought up some interesting concerns regarding vaccination of children, Dingo has pointed out the odd situation that over 60s effectively had no choice.

- oh, as of tomorrow they do, All approved vaccinations are to be available to all age groups. I suspect a lot of what we have seen as odd decisions have really been driven by supply issues. While we were awash with AZ and Pfizer was supply constrained the govt restricted access to it to the age groups that had the highest risk of TTS. Victoria increased the period between doses to 6 weeks to stretch supply further and have now brought it back to 3 weeks.

So now here in Melbourne as we are about to head down the path of the rest of the world there seems to be a lot of anxiety driven by the rising infection rates, we were going up by about 50/day but the last few days we are doubling every 3-4 days. The daily breakdown still seems to be about 80% under 50 ( less vaccinated), mostly transmitted in the home, through gatherings that contravene the PHOs and the workplace in certain industries. Hospitalisations are almost all unvaccinated people.

The postal service has stopped picking up mail/parcels for 5 days to try and clear the backlog, a number of mail centers have been closed due to being primary exposure sites.

Today's presser indicated that 1/3 of the cases in the reporting period were as a result of gatherings over the Grand Final long weekend. Ambulance paramedic on the radio today described turning up at a house with 9 people infected and being asked to give a vaccination on the way to the hospital.

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by GordMay

About 23 years.
The “rule of 70" is a way of estimating the time it takes to double a number based on its growth rate.
Number of Years to Double = 70 ÷ Annual Rate of Return
70 ÷ 3 = 23 1/3 years
Some economists refer to the "rule of 69" or the "rule of 72." These are just variations on the rule of 70 concept.

Apart from you not agreeing with my description of Utopia, I am happy to know who on earth to go to for anything I might want to know! Google on legs as it were.

Indeed the rule of 70 is great to get a ballpark figure such as this one. So 23 years for a doubling and 46 for a quadrupling. 4 x the current economic activity over the lifetime of our kids. The future growth is unlikely to be that high and probably it won't go hand in hand with resource depletion at the same rate but for sure this path is absolutely not sustainable and will only expose the human race to more threats, one of them being more regular and more serious outbreaks of what we are currently experiencing with covid. And then there are the other issues...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

Apart from you not agreeing with my description of Utopia, I am happy to know who on earth to go to for anything I might want to know! Google on legs as it were.

Indeed the rule of 70 is great to get a ballpark figure such as this one. So 23 years for a doubling and 46 for a quadrupling. 4 x the current economic activity over the lifetime of our kids. The future growth is unlikely to be that high and probably it won't go hand in hand with resource depletion at the same rate but for sure this path is absolutely not sustainable and will only expose the human race to more threats, one of them being more regular and more serious outbreaks of what we are currently experiencing with covid. And then there are the other issues...

The thing about Growth is its not infinite.. sooner or later it collapses under its own weight.