Coronavirus - Australia
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
The tracing conducted thus far and genomic fingerprinting all points back to the issues of untrained people running quarantine.
You said - and I quote:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Only one government in Australia incompetently managed the quarantine process permitting people to spread the virus
So. Ruby Princess.
"Only one government"
Your move, Baron.
Your evidence of uncontrolled community transmission from the Ruby Princess?
That actually isn't the point - your assertion is that Victoria's mistake was using security guards, and the government should be held solely responsible.
So, given WA also used security guards for their hotel quarantine, and yet have a case load far lower than Victoria per capita, does the same hold true?
It does not. The government has to shoulder part of the blame and individuals have to shoulder the rest.
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Your move Winger.
It is pretty clear from reading through this thread that you make a better bedfellow for Winger than I.
-
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
The tracing conducted thus far and genomic fingerprinting all points back to the issues of untrained people running quarantine.
You said - and I quote:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Only one government in Australia incompetently managed the quarantine process permitting people to spread the virus
So. Ruby Princess.
"Only one government"
Your move, Baron.
Your evidence of uncontrolled community transmission from the Ruby Princess?
That actually isn't the point - your assertion is that Victoria's mistake was using security guards, and the government should be held solely responsible.
No, I'm the one not seeking to absolve blame from the authority responsible for the mess.
So, given WA also used security guards for their hotel quarantine, and yet have a case load far lower than Victoria per capita, does the same hold true?
The State Government is responsible for the management of quarantine facilities, with regular hotel staff providing assistance.
"The State Health Incident Coordination Centre has stringent protocols in place which are continually revisited to ensure currency and effectiveness," the Health Department said in a statement.
The department said there were nurses stationed on site 24 hours a day and private security contractors placed on all floors of the hotel, while police "ensure compliance with mandatory quarantine of returning travellers".
It also said all reported incidents were investigated and appropriate action was taken to ensure compliance.
[...]
Dr Lawrence said security staff were trained in how to use PPE and regular and random audits of the quarantine hotels took place.
She also said hotel quarantine in Perth operated differently to Melbourne.
"Many of the issues in Victoria appear to have come about from passengers leaving rooms and being escorted around hotel facilities. That does not happen in Perth," she said.
[...]
Health Minister Roger Cook said that while WA's quarantine system had been looked at in light of the weaknesses exposed in Victoria, a more thorough review was also conducted before that.
"That led to a number of changes including higher levels of training for security staff. It involved the proactive engagement of our medical teams in the hotels themselves, working closely with those security teams," he said.
"One of the things you saw in Victoria was that the whole process was contracted out. It's a very different approach in Western Australia."
Mr Cook said there was "daylight" between the standards that were in place in Victoria and those operating in WA.
It does not. The government has to shoulder part of the blame and individuals have to shoulder the rest.
Moving goal posts...
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Your move Winger.
It is pretty clear from reading through this thread that you make a better bedfellow for Winger than I.
If Winger suddenly started using logic and evidence, sure.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Siam said in Coronavirus - Australia:
The lockdown rules just simply are inappropriate for living communities (animals confined to cages behave abnormally too)
Good post.
If 147,000 (including lots of healthy and all ages) had died then people would comply. But 147. This lock-down is totally over the top. I'm amazed there haven't been more non compliance.
I hope you don't have elderly parents or other relatives or friends of advancing age, because you seem to have a laissez-faire attitude towards their welfare in the face of covid19
Im not young myself. And I certainly don't want young people lives to be f++ked up to (somehow) protect me. Its up to me to look after myself. To hell with this greater good nonsense. It just gives an excuse for nanny state control freak leaders to destroy everything. Including having fun.
These types of leaders will remove all our rights and freedoms, destroy the economy, fine people for minor infractions then lock people up etc. And then clamp down totally on our rights like free speech as things slowly go to hell, If we let them.
So pretty much you want maximum freedoms, and personal responsibility, like say the US? Its working out well for them right now....
The US reflects a battle between two opposing viewpoints.
One one side are the nanny state control freak politicians (who will totally serve the elite but say the right thing at election time) and their supporters who want a parent figure to look after them and make everything wonderful. Like Mum and Dad either did or failed to. And those who want people to mostly control their own lives with a smaller Govt that serves everyone not just the elite. While the people retain their rights and freedoms.
The former will lead to hell not paradise (as their supporters believe) and its up to the latter to fight to ensure it never happens. Or reverse it when it has (the response to Covid 19 shows it has already. Hell is already on its way starting with a f++ked economy and clamp down on on our rights and freedoms).
In another thread I suggested that you have a read about positive and negative freedoms. The “freedom to “ and “freedom from”.
Did you do so and understand?
Wanting whole countries to act like teenagers cut loose from the apron strings without acknowledging repercussions isn’t really “good” freedom. -
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Siam said in Coronavirus - Australia:
The lockdown rules just simply are inappropriate for living communities (animals confined to cages behave abnormally too)
Good post.
If 147,000 (including lots of healthy and all ages) had died then people would comply. But 147. This lock-down is totally over the top. I'm amazed there haven't been more non compliance.
I hope you don't have elderly parents or other relatives or friends of advancing age, because you seem to have a laissez-faire attitude towards their welfare in the face of covid19
Im not young myself. And I certainly don't want young people lives to be f++ked up to (somehow) protect me. Its up to me to look after myself. To hell with this greater good nonsense. It just gives an excuse for nanny state control freak leaders to destroy everything. Including having fun.
These types of leaders will remove all our rights and freedoms, destroy the economy, fine people for minor infractions then lock people up etc. And then clamp down totally on our rights like free speech as things slowly go to hell, If we let them.
So pretty much you want maximum freedoms, and personal responsibility, like say the US? Its working out well for them right now....
The US reflects a battle between two opposing viewpoints.
One one side are the nanny state control freak politicians (who will totally serve the elite but say the right thing at election time) and their supporters who want a parent figure to look after them and make everything wonderful. Like Mum and Dad either did or failed to. And those who want people to mostly control their own lives with a smaller Govt that serves everyone not just the elite. While the people retain their rights and freedoms.
The former will lead to hell not paradise (as their supporters believe) and its up to the latter to fight to ensure it never happens. Or reverse it when it has (the response to Covid 19 shows it has already. Hell is already on its way starting with a f++ked economy and clamp down on on our rights and freedoms).
In another thread I suggested that you have a read about positive and negative freedoms. The “freedom to “ and “freedom from”.
Did you do so and understand?
Wanting whole countries to act like teenagers cut loose from the apron strings without acknowledging repercussions isn’t really “good” freedom.The “freedom to “ and “freedom from”.
Not really interested. I know its not a simple black and white issue. But its easy to get lost in this mind numbing boring stuff and lose track of the big picture
What I'm referring to is the right such as
To live in a house without the police smashing the door down without a warrant.
Or the right of law abiding healthy citizens to go about their business without a Govt using a small number of deaths to remove this right
The right to speak or write freely without a cop knocking on the door because of some silly law to restrict this right (as shown in the Andrew Bolt case for eg)
The right to not be forced to undertake a (big pharma $ supported) medical procedure that may cause serious harm for the so called greater good.
The right to not be forced to wear a mask. I can accept wearing one for say 15 minutes max (as they are unhealthy if worn for too long) but not all day and not outside
ETCThese are key rights where covid 19 has been used as an excuse to remove them. And sadly (and worryingly) far too many have supported this process
I
-
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - Australia:
anting whole countries to act like teenagers cut loose from the apron strings without acknowledging repercussions isn’t really “good” freedom.
Is this what you would do?
If so you need to grow up. If not stop assuming everyone is irresponsible like this. (Unlike you of course ) Most are responsible when circumstances justify it. But when Govt go overboard there will be resistance
-
@Winger so you are happy to ignore a major philosophy (big picture) and how it applies to the very examples you give and even dig out a link at the end of a load of waffle about how masks are worse than a virus, yet can’t bother to read and try to understand it.
Here’s a link to a simple explanation (that even has a cartoon image)
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
The right to not be forced to undertake a (big pharma $ supported) medical procedure that may cause serious harm for the so called greater good.
Don't the aussies tax antivaxxers? If I had my way we would do so in NZ, they would have to register their kids as such and inform schools who would have the right to refuse them entry to said school. Schools in turn should inform the rest of their students too. Among other things. I can't stand people who turn their back on centuries of science, show blatant disregard for the welfare of the rest of us, just so they can exercise their false "choice"
-
@winger you must be stoked to not be in NZ or Aus then!
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - Australia:
anting whole countries to act like teenagers cut loose from the apron strings without acknowledging repercussions isn’t really “good” freedom.
Is this what you would do?
If so you need to grow up. If not stop assuming everyone is irresponsible like this. (Unlike you of course ) Most are responsible when circumstances justify it. But when Govt go overboard there will be resistance
My assumption is made on the proof of anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers.
-
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Don't the aussies tax antivaxxers?
Certainly. Go so far as to restrict giving them benefits too (family tax benefit A). In some States children who aren't immunised can't attend pre-school. It's called "no jab, no play".
-
Australia's cooperative federalism model made to look more ridiculous by the day:
Nearly 100 Canberrans are stranded in Victoria waiting to return to the ACT, after being prevented from crossing the border by New South Wales police.
Many were surprised to learn on Friday they would not be allowed to drive through NSW to the ACT, despite having permission from ACT Health to do so.
Under new hotel quarantine requirements in NSW, anyone entering the state from Victoria must pass through Sydney Airport.
Canberra residents are now waiting in Victoria to learn if some agreement can be made between ACT and NSW authorities to allow them to drive home.
It is understood the primary reason for NSW authorities' reluctance to allow the ACT residents to drive home is the risk travellers with the virus may pass through regional towns along the route home.
The ACT Government has offered to send ACT police officers to escort the group directly back to Canberra, but that offer has not been taken up as yet.
-
reports 322 cases in vic today, lowest in a good couple of weeks, 19 deaths though which is the new high i think
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Don't the aussies tax antivaxxers?
Certainly. Go so far as to restrict giving them benefits too (family tax benefit A). In some States children who aren't immunised can't attend pre-school. It's called "no jab, no play".
And if you accept peoples rights being taken away where will it stop. Maybe where we are now. A destroyed economy and police able to smash your door down without a warrant. And soon maybe needing permission to travel outside of your allocated zone (its already happened in Victoria). It won't end. Once we accept our right being taken away (always for some great reason) it opens a door that will be hard to close
I'll repost this quote
Benjamin Franklin once famously remarked that “[t]hose who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Don't the aussies tax antivaxxers?
Certainly. Go so far as to restrict giving them benefits too (family tax benefit A). In some States children who aren't immunised can't attend pre-school. It's called "no jab, no play".
And if you accept peoples rights being taken away where will it stop.
What does that have to do with my post?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
It is understood the primary reason for NSW authorities' reluctance to allow the ACT residents to drive home is the risk travellers with the virus may pass through regional towns along the route home.
There's nowhere worth stopping!
Although, given that Canberra is the final destination, maybe a short break in Gundagai is enticing.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@canefan said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Don't the aussies tax antivaxxers?
Certainly. Go so far as to restrict giving them benefits too (family tax benefit A). In some States children who aren't immunised can't attend pre-school. It's called "no jab, no play".
And if you accept peoples rights being taken away where will it stop. Maybe where we are now. A destroyed economy and police able to smash your door down without a warrant. And soon maybe needing permission to travel outside of your allocated zone (its already happened in Victoria). It won't end. Once we accept our right being taken away (always for some great reason) it opens a door that will be hard to close
I'll repost this quote
Benjamin Franklin once famously remarked that “[t]hose who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For at least around 20 years Police have already had the power to smash your door down without a warrant. And once inside they can detain anyone and search them and the building. They can compel you to tell them your name, and if you refuse you can be charged. They can evict you from your house and/or lock you up. They can tell you where and when you are not allowed to go places, and who you can't talk to. All this can be done without having to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. These police powers you are so concerned about aren't exactly new.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Coronavirus - Australia:
These police powers you are so concerned about aren't exactly new.
YOU'VE BEEN COMPROMISED BY THE DEEP STATE!