Covid-19 Revisit

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
What I wanted to say is that I found the arrest of that woman to be awful. But what really gets me is how the Australians, as represented on this board anyway, just shrug their shoulders and go along with it.
you break the law, you have no one to blame but yourself. Whether the arrest was justified or not will be determined in a court of law. It's not like she has to spend months in jail awaiting a trial.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
you break the law, you have no one to blame but yourself. Whether the arrest was justified or not will be determined in a court of law. It's not like she has to spend months in jail awaiting a trial.
In America, we are aware of our Constitutional rights. If the government oversteps, there is substantial resistance because that is our culture.

We do believe in the rule of law here, but that is with the caveat that the government doesn't overstep.

What I sense from Australians is an acceptance that the government is a master that you shall not defy.

I don't believe I am articulate enough to define this difference very well, and yet I sense it acutely.

Seth
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
In America, we are aware of our Constitutional rights. If the government oversteps, there is substantial resistance because that is our culture.

We do believe in the rule of law here, but that is with the caveat that the government doesn't overstep.

What I sense from Australians is an acceptance that the government is a master that you shall not defy.

I don't believe I am articulate enough to define this difference very well, and yet I sense it acutely.

Seth
What do Americans do to defy the government that Australians don't?

Can you give some examples?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
What do Americans do to defy the government that Australians don't?

Can you give some examples?
One example I see is the backlash against big tech, specifically Facebook, Twitter, and Apple for thinking that they shall become the purveyors of truth (a suppression of free speech).

Another is what I perceive as an almost universal decision not to comply with compulsory registration of firearms or turn-in of semi-automatic rifles or pistols or "oversize" magazines if that becomes law.

Black Americans created a Black Lives Matter movement as resistance to what they perceive as injustice at the hands of government.

There was organized resistance to Jim Crow laws.

There was resistance to the Viet Nam War.

There was a refusal to comply with Prohibition.

Presently, there is resistance to Covid restrictions, and, believe it or not, resistance to easing Covid restrictions (the example is teachers' unions).

In Oregon, there was resistance to certain drug laws, and that resistance was turned into changes in the law by the People, through our Initiative process.

And in general, Americans do not allow the government arrest and jail people for things like non-violent speech and assembly. That is anathema to most of us. Apparently, that is not true in Australia.

Americans really have almost no aversion to resisting or challenging our government when they think their Constitutional rights are being violated. The impression I get from reading on this board is that our culture is different from yours. You all seem to default to compliance with government edicts, and you don't approve of resistance because ... well ... the government knows best.

Right or wrong, that's the impression I get.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
In America, we are aware of our Constitutional rights.
Irrelevant. She has rights in Australia and from what I've read about her she is most likely aware of them ..... but with those rights come the responsibility to uphold the laws of the land. Whether you agree with them or not.

If what she did was deemed to be illegal by the police, police have every right to arrest her. It's now up to the courts to decide if the police were right in doing so or not.


Americans do not allow the government arrest and jail people for things like non-violent speech and assembly
The difference is not that Aussies allow or don't allow arrests. The difference is that we have faith in our systems. If the arrests are unjust, they typically won't amount to anything. In America your system is so flawed that an American cannot rely on the system to do the right thing. The thousands of black people in jail for trivial crap, or just for being black, is testament to that.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
One example I see is the backlash against big tech, specifically Facebook, Twitter, and Apple for thinking that they shall become the purveyors of truth (a suppression of free speech).

Another is what I perceive as an almost universal decision not to comply with compulsory registration of firearms or turn-in of semi-automatic rifles or pistols or "oversize" magazines if that becomes law.

Black Americans created a Black Lives Matter movement as resistance to what they perceive as injustice at the hands of government.

There was organized resistance to Jim Crow laws.

There was resistance to the Viet Nam War.

There was a refusal to comply with Prohibition.

Presently, there is resistance to Covid restrictions, and, believe it or not, resistance to easing Covid restrictions (the example is teachers' unions).

In Oregon, there was resistance to certain drug laws, and that resistance was turned into changes in the law by the People, through our Initiative process.

And in general, Americans do not allow the government arrest and jail people for things like non-violent speech and assembly. That is anathema to most of us. Apparently, that is not true in Australia.

Americans really have almost no aversion to resisting or challenging our government when they think their Constitutional rights are being violated. The impression I get from reading on this board is that our culture is different from yours. You all seem to default to compliance with government edicts, and you don't approve of resistance because ... well ... the government knows best.

Right or wrong, that's the impression I get.

Yeah, nah.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I have some disagreement with you about Covid, masking, vaccinations, and lockdowns. But I don't want to discuss all that. You're positions are locked in stone, and so are mine, so let's not.
Sorry Seth, my views are NOT "locked in stone". They are locked in facts. If you could show me just one bit of direct impartial, and verifiable evidence that supports your position, then I would be championing your position in a New York minute. But so far, I've only seen apathy, indifference, ignorance, and the mindless parroting of government propaganda, platitudes, and soundbites. There is not even an attempt being made to make a rational argument anymore. The government disseminates it own self-serving information to promote its own agenda. I get that. But now we are actually seeing over 25M uninfected Australian, standing in line, and waiting to voluntarily infect themselves with a rushed vaccine, that they don't even need. This is some scary shit. It clearly demonstrates, that no matter how much most people bitch about the government, that at the end of the day, they will still be saying "yes sir boss!!". Sheep!

What I wanted to say is that I found the arrest of that woman to be awful. But what really gets me is how the Australians, as represented on this board anyway, just shrug their shoulders and go along with it.
I agree. In American jurisprudence, you are convicted and sentenced for only one crime. It is NOT a, "throw enough shit on the wall, and then hope that at least some of it will stick.". You are tried and sentenced for only the most severe crime you have commit in the US. You are NOT tried and convicted of murder, other related crimes, and jaywalking. In Australia, you can be tried and sentenced for a major offence, and a laundry list of lesser offences. This almost guarantees that if you are arrested for multiple offences, that you WILL do some time, or that you WILL pay some fine. This is NOT my idea of a fair judicial system. The American Judicial system, although flawed in some ways(private prisons, bail systems, etc.), it will dismiss all lesser offences "in the interests of justice". The judge here could have done the same thing. But judges here work in a system that is dependent only on the revenue that it can generate. Not on the justice that it can provide.

Unfortunately, in Australia, it is a felony for a person to abuse a corpse. It is a 1-7 year prison sentence. In Australia, it is only the letter of the law that is used to control its sheep. In America, there is also the spirit of the law, and the intent of the law, to provide JUSTICE for its sheep. The law must not only be blind, but it must also be fair and just. Being acquitted of murder in self-defense, because of a lifetime of abuse is certainly fair. But being sent to jail for abusing the abuser's corpse in certainly unfair. Does anyone here think that she was actually thinking rationally at the time?

If you shot and killed someone, who had shot your wife and child, and was about to shot your newborn child in the crib, no one would complain if you were acquitted of murder. Right? But what if you had used dum dum bullets to save the baby instead? You could then be charged with a 4th degree felony, and sentenced to 1 year in county jail, and up to 18 months in a state prison. Should justice be dependent only on the the letter of the law?

For all those one-dimensional thinkers, whose scope of Justice is limited only to the letter of the law, then there is no need to read any further. I could give hundreds of examples of where people break the law for very just and obvious reasons. Or, provide 50 mitigating circumstances to justify disobeying the law. But it would never make one bit of difference to them. To them, the law is only meant to be obeyed. It is NOT meant to be just and fair. But, for the rest of us, the law IS sometimes meant to be broken for very just reasons. You may need to jaywalk in traffic to save a child, or to speed to deliver a baby. This is why all statutes must be interpreted, and tried based on all the facts, and all the other mitigating circumstances. Not simply, "She broke the law".

Justice and the Law are meant to be Blind. But neither was meant to be Deaf. Justice can sometimes be above the Law.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
One example I see is the backlash against big tech, specifically Facebook, Twitter, and Apple for thinking that they shall become the purveyors of truth (a suppression of free speech).

Another is what I perceive as an almost universal decision not to comply with compulsory registration of firearms or turn-in of semi-automatic rifles or pistols or "oversize" magazines if that becomes law.

Black Americans created a Black Lives Matter movement as resistance to what they perceive as injustice at the hands of government.

There was organized resistance to Jim Crow laws.

There was resistance to the Viet Nam War.

There was a refusal to comply with Prohibition.

Presently, there is resistance to Covid restrictions, and, believe it or not, resistance to easing Covid restrictions (the example is teachers' unions).

In Oregon, there was resistance to certain drug laws, and that resistance was turned into changes in the law by the People, through our Initiative process.

And in general, Americans do not allow the government arrest and jail people for things like non-violent speech and assembly. That is anathema to most of us. Apparently, that is not true in Australia.

Americans really have almost no aversion to resisting or challenging our government when they think their Constitutional rights are being violated. The impression I get from reading on this board is that our culture is different from yours. You all seem to default to compliance with government edicts, and you don't approve of resistance because ... well ... the government knows best.

Right or wrong, that's the impression I get.
Very well said!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
For all those one-dimensional thinkers, whose scope of Justice is limited only to the letter of the law, then there is no need to read any further. I could give hundreds of examples of where people break the law for very just and obvious reasons.
I disagree with your sentiment that judges here don't take into account the reasons why people break the laws.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Sorry Seth, my views are NOT "locked in stone". They are locked in facts. If you could show me just one bit of direct impartial, and verifiable evidence that supports your position, then I would be championing your position in a New York minute. But so far, I've only seen apathy, indifference, ignorance, and the mindless parroting of government propaganda, platitudes, and soundbites. There is not even an attempt being made to make a rational argument anymore. The government disseminates it own self-serving information to promote its own agenda. I get that. But now we are actually seeing over 25M uninfected Australian, standing in line, and waiting to voluntarily infect themselves with a rushed vaccine, that they don't even need. This is some scary shit. It clearly demonstrates, that no matter how much most people bitch about the government, that at the end of the day, they will still be saying "yes sir boss!!". Sheep!
Facts are facts, but we may use facts to prove our opinions. For example, you may cite the 500,000 Covid deaths in the U.S. to form an opinion that Covid is a serious illness, justifying all of the restrictions. Those 500,000 dwarf the numbers of people who die from the flu in the U.S. every year. On the other hand, if there have been 500,000 deaths, there are around 320 million people in this country who have not died of the disease, and there are some 19.6 million who have had it and recovered. So using those facts, one could form an opinion that this disease is not really all that serious, and the restrictions are unnecessary. Facts are facts, but how we interpret them and respond to them and the opinions we form inevitably will differ.

On vaccinations, it will be interesting to follow the numbers through 2021 as the majority of the population gets vaccinated. I think your case against vaccinations will be either weaker or stronger by the end of the year.

On mask wearing and social distancing, we know that doing that is not a guarantee against catching the disease, but common sense tells us that it doesn't hurt, and it might help. Those measures are harmless. I see most people doing those things less out of concern for themselves (although that's part of it), but very much out of respect for others ... a sort of politeness that has taken hold. My wife and I are in our 60s, and we don't want to get sick with the disease, but we interact with my wife's elderly mother in her 80s often. We help her get places, shop for groceries, etc. We do not want to get infected and then infect her. So if mask wearing and social distancing reduces the chances of infecting ourselves and especially her, I'm going to do it.

My work requires us to take our temperatures as we walk in. Hand washing stations have been added. Again, these measures don't guarantee anything really, but they are also harmless, and they might help.

The most difficult adjunct to this pandemic has been the closing of businesses, the resultant unemployment, and the shutting down of our schools. For many kids, it appears as though the 2020-2021 school year will be almost a total loss. We need to have our schools fully staffed and open by the end of summer for the 2021-2022 school year. Keeping kids out of school just cannot continue.

I am cautiously optimistic that this year will be a turning point and that we will be well on our way to normalcy by the end of the year.

I sure hope so.

But I am decidedly against government arresting and prosecuting people for not abiding by masking or social distancing, and I am against the government imposing civil penalties on businesses. I'm fine with government providing information and recommending guidelines. But I don't want them criminalizing what would otherwise be lawful activity, and I especially don't want government trying to overrule the Bill of Rights.

Seth
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I disagree with your sentiment that judges here don't take into account the reasons why people break the laws.

Oh, I'm certain that these judges take into account why people break the law. But for some people(indigenous), they clearly don't give a shit why. Was this the only thing in the entire post that you could find to disagree with? The real point of the post, was NOT to reduce/conflate the entire administration of justice to just "Don't break the law, or you to jail". But, that sometimes it is necessary to break the law. Including drawing attention to your grievances. And, that the merits of the case, is what will determine its criminality. Not just the statute. The second point, was to point out just one of the clear difference between the Australian and American jurisprudence systems.

"Australia owns the humanitarian award as the mother of all jailers, for it First Peoples". Aboriginal/Indigenous people represent only 3.3% of the entire Australian population. Yet, they are alarmingly over-represented in the Australian Criminal Justice System. In fact, the Australian rate of Indigenous arrests, convictions, and incarcerations, was even greater than the American rate of Black American arrests, convictions, and incarcerations. Even at the height of the reconstruction era.

Since it seems highly unlikely that every indigenous offenders shared the same common circumstances, one can only assume that there must be some other commonality that judges are seeing, that could justify so many guilty verdicts and incarcerations? I also wonder how many Indigenous judges are sitting on the bench? Only 2!!??? In all of Australia?

 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
The Johnson and Johnson vaccine has now been given an emergency approval for use in the U.S. It only requires one shot, and the vaccine can be stored using refrigeration, not freezing. J&J expects to have produced enough vaccine to vaccinate 100 million people by mid-year.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Facts are facts, but we may use facts to prove our opinions. For example, you may cite the 500,000 Covid deaths in the U.S. to form an opinion that Covid is a serious illness, justifying all of the restrictions. Those 500,000 dwarf the numbers of people who die from the flu in the U.S. every year. On the other hand, if there have been 500,000 deaths, there are around 320 million people in this country who have not died of the disease, and there are some 19.6 million who have had it and recovered. So using those facts, one could form an opinion that this disease is not really all that serious, and the restrictions are unnecessary. Facts are facts, but how we interpret them and respond to them and the opinions we form inevitably will differ.
I'm not certain what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that we should not trust the facts? Or, not to trust our interpretation of the facts? The goal of facts is to verify/validate an opinions/hypotheses. Without facts there are only 7.8B opinions. And, the more facts you have, the less opinions you need. I certainly agree that criminalizing walking in the park, having a cup of coffee in a restaurant, reading a book on the beach, talking to friends and neighbors in a group, or doing what would normally be a non-criminal act, is just insane. It is just a political stunt to get more political exposure. And, to give the appearance that the government is in control of their own creation. Every single one of these idiotic cunts has lost my vote. They have proven just how little they care about people in general.

It is NOT my opinion that at least 513K American are dead(doctors signature, death certificate, a real body, etc.). But it is an opinion that every single death was the direct result of Covid-19. At 80 and 90 years old, many have died WITH the disease, not because of the disease. But I've already stipulated this as a fact, just for the sake of avoiding an unprovable argument. The percentage of elderly deaths is also only a small percentage of the elderly population in the US. So yes, nothing that warrants a panic. This is a fact, not an opinion.

It is NOT my opinion that viruses don't kill their hosts. It is always the host's immune response that kills the virus. But, if the immune system is weak, or is fighting another chronic illness, it won't be able to combat a viral invasion. So the immune system will respond only to the damages, and not to the virus. And the host will die. All complex living organisms have been fighting viruses since the evolution of species. Our immune system has been designed(through Evolution) to fight against micro-pathogens, and will continue to evolve against any new micro-pathogen. This is a fact, not an opinion.

It is NOT my opinion that the coronavirus is smaller than the wavelength of light. Or, that the pore sizes of face-masks are 3-4 times larger than the largest coronavirus. Or, that the virus can also enter the body through the ears and eyes. Or, that health care professionals are ranked among one of the highest number of people who are infected with this virus. Despite wearing the best protection available. Masks SHOULD certainly be worn by those who ARE infected, to reduce the threat of them spreading the virus. All 73 active cases currently in all of Australia. This is a fact, not an opinion.

It is NOT my opinion that MSM have saturated the airway with half-truths, omissions, and misinformation, in their bid for a bigger share of the media audience. Fueling people's fear and ignorance, by releasing only the numbers of daily deaths, the total numbers of those infected, the total numbers of those hospitalized(hospitals will be overrun), suggesting what the future stats will be, creating panic by disseminating what is only opinions and crystal-balling, and providing the daily stats on the total infections from all over the world. They also down play the virus's mortality/survival rates, the total number of recoveries(the recoveries are usually NOT listed for the US), the number of those who have acquired immunity that have been re-infected, why masks are useless, that 80% of all deaths are people over 70 years old, the percentage of the total population who are NOT infected, the percentage of the total population who are NOT dead, and the number of those infected by asymptomatic victims. This is also a fact, not an opinion.

It is NOT my opinion that it normally takes 10-15 years(or even longer) to develop a reliable and effective vaccine. https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/12/vaccine-manufacturing-q-and-a/ But the length of time of a vaccine is not really the issue for me. It is the idea itself of taking THIS vaccine. Why would anyone who is NOT infected with this virus, with only a tiny chance of ever being infected by this virus, would fear being infected by this 95%+ non-lethal virus? And, even if they were infected, they would simply develop their own immunity naturally. Not artificially! This just seems to me completely illogical for any healthy uninfected person to do. But again, that's just me. Captain obvious. It has always been a red flag for me, whenever someone tells me, "Well, it couldn't hurt".

Regarding the future, we are seeing it unfold before us now. The number of deaths and infections will eventually stop. Why? Not because of distancing, mask-wearing, isolations, or anything that man does. It will be only because as more and more people recover or die from this virus, there will be less and less people able to spread the virus. This is what happens in every viral pandemic. This is why population are never decimated by any viral infestation. Evolution is not based on 'wait and see what will happen". It is based on "survival by trial and error". But, I agree that every precaution should be taken to protect those, with the greatest risk of dying from the virus.

So, in summary. Facts are very important if you want to support your opinions. You can convince me of anything, as long as you can provide the facts. Facts don't lie, people do. If I had a 20-40% percent chance of dying from any virus, I would then gladly take any vaccine. It is our immune system that protect us from micro-pathogens, NOT vaccines. Vaccines only prompts the immune system by giving it an early alert viral-recognition system. Vaccines don't stop us from being infected by any virus. But they do lessen the severity of the infection, through this early warning system.
 
Last edited:

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
In America, we are aware of our Constitutional rights. If the government oversteps, there is substantial resistance because that is our culture.

We do believe in the rule of law here, but that is with the caveat that the government doesn't overstep.

What I sense from Australians is an acceptance that the government is a master that you shall not defy.

I don't believe I am articulate enough to define this difference very well, and yet I sense it acutely.

Seth


And your prisons are full of young black men inside for trivial offences because of the stupid 3 strikes law.

And there was that woman who was found guilty of murder because her unborn child died from a stab wound because she was found equally culpable in the genesis of the fight.

Don't talk to us about warped 'justice' Seth. Your country reeks of it.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
In America, we are aware of our Constitutional rights. If the government oversteps, there is substantial resistance because that is our culture.

We do believe in the rule of law here, but that is with the caveat that the government doesn't overstep.

What I sense from Australians is an acceptance that the government is a master that you shall not defy.

I don't believe I am articulate enough to define this difference very well, and yet I sense it acutely.

Seth
Just trying to catch up.. been off ... but I agree with you Seth.

It has a huge significance that we older Aussies just accept much of the wrongness of our govt. in favour of more money, while the young are protesting for their very futures. THIS GOVT..? this LIBERAL Govt ( That is a political party here, not a description Seth, if you haven't worked that out by now.), bolstered by the National Party in Coalition have run this country into the ground. THIS govt. from the early 1990's decided to make what used to be called Nursing Homes.. into something else.. The Profit instead of the care was the most important thing. The became Aged Care Homes, run for profit, and almost without fetter, did whatever they chose, with costs, and profits as their reason.

And we see the horrors that have occurred as a result.

Aged Care Facilities in Australia, show us the absolute depths to which people will go... Mental Health Care.. all disability services are afterthoughts.. got to calculate the profits first.

This all happens because John Howard, and all his subsequent cronies have pushed those buttons that appealed to the middle yo upper-middle .. to professional classes.. the govt handed off all responsibilit for public services to the disadavantaged where they could ) to BUSINESS.

They determined they wee just the go-betweens.. do nothing but move things around the way it suits them.. their fat friends and their fat profits... I saw it happening.. hey I did... and

we have now the fruits of this LNP governments determination to do NOTHING but broker. IT;s fucked.

All aged care should be run by professionals, not businesses. It blows my mind this is still going on, BUT THEN WE still have the same govt as when my MUM died , after years of of horror.. like 4 years before she would surrender. 😭😢

This government is so culpable.. Morrison is incompetent. He doesn't really have a fucking clue.. his little brain cannot encompass the horror over which he has presided.

Poor PM. :read
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
Lockdowns, as we call them were quite the go in post WW1 Australia.
State Borders were closed, people were made to stay in place, and masks and protective gear was common.
Some folk in transit between states were locked in, and some tried to flee. Sound familiar.?

People were required to stay home, and there are many historical references to measures taken during that 1st Pandemic, here in Australia. There are photos of empty Sydney City streets.

Nothing much has changed , except this is not a FLU, and there are many more mobile people than there was back then.

BUT.. just to set you right... lockdowns are not new.
Not here .
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Lockdowns, as we call them were quite the go on post WW! Australia. Borders were closed, people we made to stay in place, and masks and protective gear was common. People were required to stay home, and there are many historical references to measures taken during that 1st Pandemic, here in Australia.
Are you really comparing the precautions Australia took to protect its citizens from an invading army, to the shutting down the entire Australian economy because of a flu-LIKE virus? Gas masks(not surgical masks), were used to protect the people from poisonous gas(not a virus). The lockdown was used to keep people out of the way of the military(not a virus).

My argument was never about if the lockdown was novel or not. My argument was that we have never gone to such extremes with any lockdowns before. We have never, isolated our country from the world, closedown almost 230,000 small businesses(producing over $40B in unproductive debt), put over 1.6M people onto jobseeker payments, fined or arrested thousands of people for breaching coronavirus restrictions,

"Under the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015, refusers of coronavirus vaccination[1] in Australia could be at risk of five years imprisonment and/or a $66,600 fine.[2] [3]".

forced 26M people to stay 2 meters apart, destroyed our own Travel, Catering, and Hospitality Industries, suspended our individual freedoms, and the making of more of those hard decisions that have no effect those making those making them. They will continue to live comfortably off of the rest of our toils.

So, when have we ever taken such precautions in the past for a war, or a flu-LIKE pandemic?
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
In reply to Q 1 .. that whole reply is utter nonsense.

Measures were taken to deal with the FLU. Not WW1. That was over. We won yay.
But all those returning soldiers stretched this Country to the max... we were fighting the FLU, whatever the fuck you think.

But now..? there are a lot more of us A hell of a lot more people...


I could say more about that time for you.
But American times.

Did you know....?

Two populous cities took distinctly opposed tactics to manage the so called Spanish Flu , in the US, at that time.

The facts have been widely disseminated.. ( well Hey I saw it !! ) .

Do you know about that. and the relative outcomes.?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
that's a different issue. Racism is just as rife in the USA. The US jails are full of black people.
Black Americans are NOT the "First People" in America. That would be the American Indians. Their representation in the prison population is so small, that it is listed as "others". Aboriginals ARE the "First Nation People" of Australia(3.3% of the population). Yet, Aboriginal males make up an average of 30% of of the prison population in Australia. This is an extremely over-representation of Aboriginals in the prison system. There must be a reason. Three percent of the population just can't be this unlucky. And, considering that there are only two sitting Aboriginal trial judges in all of Australia, you damn right it's all about racism. So when you say,

"I disagree with your sentiment that judges here don't take into account the reasons why people break the laws.".

You are only talking about WHITE judges taking into account why WHITE people break the law? Just to be clear. Or, are there separate laws here for Aboriginals, like the "Jim Crow" laws were for Black Americans?
 
Top