Why should people be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others who choose not to get vaccinated??

chris155au

Active member
People can cough if there is a chicken bone in their throat, or sneeze if flour is thrown in their face. So yes, being infected by a virus is NOT the only prerequisite for coughing and sneezing.
Well I can't see why you list such relatively unlikely things which can cause coughing and sneezing! I cough and sneeze quite regularly and it's not due to choking chicken bones and having flour thrown in my face!

We were talking specifically about asymptomatic people who are infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What is the evidence, that suggest asymptomatic carriers have infected others? What is the mechanism that can explain how asymptomatic carriers can transmit the virus? Both are unclear, but certainly not impossible.
I've never looked into whether or not there is evidence
for it. I'm guessing there isn't much, if any at all?

There have been 20,955 total cases of Covid-19 in Victoria. There have been 20,036 people who have recovered from Covid-19, naturally. They have formed their own antibodies against this disease.
Yeah, you're talking about natural infection herd immunity?

There have also been 820 people who have died from complications of the disease. This means that there is 99 active cases of Covid-19 still in a population of 6.8M people.
How do you come up with the figure of 99 active cases?

Victoria is the second most densely populated state in Australia. In reality, the virus simply does what it has always done. As it infects more and more people, it will reach a peak where less and less people CAN become fully infected. This is the exact pattern that we see in Victoria, and all other states. It is typical that the government needs to take credit for what is really, just the natural cycle of any virus.
Then why do we only see cases rising again after lockdowns end?

Aggressive lockdown? We are talking about a microorganism 3 times smaller than the smallest pore size on any masks.
Including N95?

Exactly. Everything that I predicted would happen, is happening. Now, the government is using the lockdown as a bargaining chip. Everyone must be tested, or else the lockdowns will continue indefinitely. Everyone must be vaccinated(even those who have recovered), or the lockdown continues indefinitely. Anyone who leaves the country must have a proof of vaccination ID card. Now the government is trying to stop e-business, and internet orders. Products from overseas might be infected. I guess shaming non-compliant Australians weren't working. Why are only the numbers of infected mentioned? Not, the number of recoveries.
Is this all in relation to Australia or the US? I wasn't sure, because in this paragraph you were replying to me talking about Florida.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I've taken dozens of vaccines and have no problem with them. I do have a problem with people wanting to force me to get experimental shots for a virus I've already had. And I actually do carry a gun, but I don't threaten people for disagreeing with me. Its a Kimber.
it's a figure of speech tex
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Well I can't see why you list such relatively unlikely things which can cause coughing and sneezing! I cough and sneeze quite regularly and it's not due to choking chicken bones and having flour thrown in my face!
I wasn't trying to be facetious or glib. I was trying to point out that I agree that coughing and sneezing can be caused by things, other than a virus. Also neither example is as unlikely as you might think. But then I would be deflecting with the stats. Maybe I should have included "french-kissing", as another mode of transmission. But we were talking about asymptomatic people infected with Covid-19.

My point was, that a lot of people keep making the claim that asymptomatic people with Covid-19 can still infect others. I simply want to know, what is the objective evidence that supports this claim? If they don't infect people through normal modes of transmissions, then what is the transmission mechanism that they use? So far, it just seems to be another unsupported rationale to lump asymptomatic people into the same category as symptomatic people. Symptoms can begin between 2-14 days after exposure. They can range between mild to severe. So a person can go a week or more, without displaying any symptoms at all.

I've never looked into whether or not there is evidence
for it. I'm guessing there isn't much, if any at all?
Correct.

Including N95?
Yes including N95 masks. N95 masks are around 85% effective for filtering microorganisms smaller than 300 nanometers(the SARS-CoV-2 virus ranges from 50-125 nanometers). So not that effective. Remember, the N95 does not cover your eyes. Which is another path for the pathogen to take. Also, unless the sides of the mask is taped, you will breath in air droplets from the sides of the masks. And, each droplet could have thousands of viruses on it. Hence why one of the largest number of people infected, are those working in the healthcare industry. For comparison, a dust mite is more than 2,000 times larger than the SARS-CoV-2 virus.


How do you come up with the figure of 99 active cases?
In Victoria, 20,955 total cases - 20,036 recoveries - 820 deaths = 99 still active cases.

Then why do we only see cases rising again after lockdowns end?
Firstly, I'm not sure that the lockdowns has ever been completely lifted. To my knowledge, they have always been in place since March 2020. In some form or another. But, if you can show any direct verifiable causal link between zero lockdowns, and the rise in infections, then I'm all ears. Of course this would mean, that you would need to explain why none of the other variables and conditions(climate, density, temperature, demographics, season, etc.) could also explain this rise(if true).

Is this all in relation to Australia or the US? I wasn't sure, because in this paragraph you were replying to me talking about Florida.
I was referring to Australia. This is not happening in the US.
 

chris155au

Active member
Everyone must be vaccinated(even those who have recovered), or the lockdown continues indefinitely. Anyone who leaves the country must have a proof of vaccination ID card. Now the government is trying to stop e-business, and internet orders. Products from overseas might be infected.
Where are you getting this from?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Where are you getting this from?
Are you insinuating that this is not true?

 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You do live in the US don't you?
I was born and raised in San Francisco. I now live in Australia. I take back what I said about America. Now NY is implementing mandatory vaccinations. Does anyone understand that although the "delta" strain may be more virulent, it also has the the shortest life cycle, the slowest replication rate, and the lowest mortality rate? Just like any other mutated strain. Again, this is not mentioned. Do you know how many people have died from this variant strain? Also, not mentioned.

Does anyone see any problem with forcing every man woman and child, to be vaccinated by any government endorsed vaccine? Can anyone see any danger with setting this medical precedent? Or, in the fining, threatening, or in arresting anyone who doesn't comply? Is it possible that this much intrusive governmental power could be abused? We are talking about forcing over 98% of population(who are not infected) to vaccinate themselves, from a disease with a recovery rate over 97%. And for those who refuse, they are fined, refused entry to shops and businesses, arrested, and are not allowed interstate or international travel. Does any of this sound rational? These extreme restriction methods would only make sense, if over 50% of the entire population were infected with this virus. Not less than 1%. Where were these restrictions for all the obesity, smoking and alcohol related diseases?


It depends on how you define "lockdown."
Whenever people must wear masks to leave their homes, or keep 2 meters apart, I call a lockdown. Whenever I am forced to sign my details, or swipe my mobile QR code, before I can enter a shop, I call a lockdown. Whenever anyone is fined or arrested for congregating in public, having a party, or sunbaking on the beach, I call a lockdown. Whenever, I can't get on a plane to bury my mother in the US, I call a lockdown. Any restrictions that limits my freedom of choice or movements, I call a lockdown. So what is your definition of a lockdown, that provides evidence that would explain the rise and fall in infection rates?
 

chris155au

Active member
I was born and raised in San Francisco. I now live in Australia. I take back what I said about America. Now NY is implementing mandatory vaccinations.
Yep. And Mr left wing Mayor is going to have a small race issue on his hands, with 70% of black New Yorkers who will now be banned from 'polite' society! The left is going to EAT ITSELF! :ROFL1

Does anyone understand that although the "delta" strain may be more virulent, it also has the the shortest life cycle, the slowest replication rate, and the lowest mortality rate? Just like any other mutated strain. Again, this is not mentioned. Do you know how many people have died from this variant strain? Also, not mentioned.
Where are you getting the data from?

Does anyone see any problem with forcing every man woman and child, to be vaccinated by any government endorsed vaccine?
I do. And are you okay with bakers being forced to participate in same sex weddings?

Can anyone see any danger with setting this medical precedent? Or, in the fining, threatening, or in arresting anyone who doesn't comply?
I can.

Is it possible that this much intrusive governmental power could be abused?
Is it possible? There's NO QUESTION about that!

We are talking about forcing over 98% of population(who are not infected) to vaccinate themselves, from a disease with a recovery rate over 97%. And for those who refuse, they are fined, refused entry to shops and businesses, arrested, and are not allowed interstate or international travel. Does any of this sound rational?
No it doesn't sound rational at all.

These extreme restriction methods would only make sense, if over 50% of the entire population were infected with this virus. Not less than 1%.
Isn't the argument that it could go above 1% without mitigation?

Whenever people must wear masks to leave their homes, or keep 2 meters apart, I call a lockdown. Whenever I am forced to sign my details, or swipe my mobile QR code, before I can enter a shop, I call a lockdown. Whenever anyone is fined or arrested for congregating in public, having a party, or sunbaking on the beach, I call a lockdown. Whenever, I can't get on a plane to bury my mother in the US, I call a lockdown. Any restrictions that limits my freedom of choice or movements, I call a lockdown. So what is your definition of a lockdown, that provides evidence that would explain the rise and fall in infection rates?
Well I certainly make a distinction between lockdown and physical distancing or venue sign in. I mean, you don't actually consider venue sign in as 'lockdown' do you? Anyway, if this is your definition of lockdown then you're correct when you say that you're "not sure that the lockdowns has ever been completely lifted." My definition of lockdown is whenever there is a 'stay-at-home order' in place. And by this definition, then no, we have not been under continued lockdown. Although most of the country is right now! And, I am VERY sorry to hear that your mother passed away and you weren't able to get there. I mean, I dare say that you were pretty anti-lockdown before, but that may have taken you to a whole other level. Anyone who might criticise your position would probably have a different viewpoint if they too lost family overseas and couldn't get there.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Yep. And Mr left wing Mayor is going to have a small race issue on his hands, with 70% of black New Yorkers who will now be banned from 'polite' society! The left is going to EAT ITSELF! :ROFL1
I don't think his political party affiliation is relevant. Unless you are claiming that his actions are just party-specific? Whether he is a progressive, conservative, or a socialist, it would still be just another intrusive government overreaction to a flu-like virus, for its own political agenda. Not sure what you mean by banning Black Americans from "Polite Society".

Where are you getting the data from?
Basic biology 101. Mutations occur in all viruses. They allow the virus to move from animals to humans. They allow the virus to enter the human cell without alerting the immune system. Or, they allow the virus to be more virulent or more deadly. Basic biology says that chromosomal or genetic mutations, will not be very different than the original version, or it will be a weaker version of the original. Think of what happens in mutated changes in the human genome. People who are born with chromosomal and genetic mutations, are generally expressed as a weaker version of the non-mutated version. This is called the "Law of Natural Compensation". All life will compensate for any changes in their environment or in their structure.

This is why the media only speaks about how virulent this mutation is(up to 50% more virulent). Not, about its mortality rate, its replication rate, or how long it can withstand the body's core temperature. Which is why I asked for this variant's mortality rate.

Did you hear what happened to Alan Jones, for his comments on the 27yo who died of Covid-19 recently? He was chastised for wanting an autopsy, because of the unusual circumstances surrounding his Covid-19 death. Again, no distinction was made between dying WITH the virus, and dying FROM the virus. No Autopsy results was revealed.


I do. And are you okay with bakers being forced to participate in same sex weddings?
I'm not sure about your analogy here. How are bakers being forced to participate in same-sex marriages? Aren't they free NOT to participate?

Isn't the argument that it could go above 1% without mitigation?
At the current rate of infections in Australia, it would take decades to infect 50% of the population. And centuries to infect 100% of the population. I have shown the math in another post.

Well I certainly make a distinction between lockdown and physical distancing or venue sign in. I mean, you don't actually consider venue sign in as 'lockdown' do you? Anyway, if this is your definition of lockdown then you're correct when you say that you're "not sure that the lockdowns has ever been completely lifted." My definition of lockdown is whenever there is a 'stay-at-home order' in place. And by this definition, then no, we have not been under continued lockdown. Although most of the country is right now! And, I am VERY sorry to hear that your mother passed away and you weren't able to get there. I mean, I dare say that you were pretty anti-lockdown before, but that may have taken you to a whole other level. Anyone who might criticise your position would probably have a different viewpoint if they too lost family overseas and couldn't get there.
Thank you for your sincere condolences. I agree with you. Although, I have always been against any government that decides where I can go, or what choices I can make. But, NOT being able to say my last goodbyes to my own mother, has made this a very personal battle. Even the embassy was useless and impotent.

I think that our argument is only a matter of semantics. All lockdowns come with restrictions, directions, limits, and penalties. It is all these associated restrictions that I call a lockdown. Which also includes(in Queensland now!) a stay-at-home order. So, since this lockdown started in March, 2020, it has never been completely lifted. But the idea of making lockdowns even more severe and restrictive, whenever ONE person is infected(not died), is totally insane. IMHO There will always be someone who will test positive for some variant of some coronavirus! Especially, since viruses do not die(they go dormant). Does this mean that lockdown restrictions and testing will continue indefinitely?
 

chris155au

Active member
I don't think his political party affiliation is relevant. Unless you are claiming that his actions are just party-specific?
Is there a SINGLE Republican proposing this sort of stuff? I follow US politics VERY closely, and I haven't heard of any.

Not sure what you mean by banning Black Americans from "Polite Society".
Well not all. The 30% of black New Yorkers who have been vaccinated will be accepted into polite society. The same cannot be said for the other 70%. And the LAUGH is that the ridiculous joke of a human being who runs the city is a hardcore BLM activist! Like I said, the left is going to EAT ITSELF over this! And I for one cannot wait! :ROFL1

This is why the media only speaks about how virulent this mutation is(up to 50% more virulent). Not, about its mortality rate, its replication rate, or how long it can withstand the body's core temperature. Which is why I asked for this variant's mortality rate.
Do you mean up to 50% more virulent, or up to 50% more transmissible?

I'm not sure about your analogy here. How are bakers being forced to participate in same-sex marriages? Aren't they free NOT to participate?
You weren't aware that most US States have anti-discrimination law which covers Public Accommodations, including non-essential services? You've never heard of even one single case of a baker who has been sued for refusing to create a wedding cake for a same sex wedding?

I think that our argument is only a matter of semantics. All lockdowns come with restrictions, directions, limits, and penalties. It is all these associated restrictions that I call a lockdown. Which also includes(in Queensland now!) a stay-at-home order. So, since this lockdown started in March, 2020, it has never been completely lifted. But the idea of making lockdowns even more severe and restrictive, whenever ONE person is infected(not died), is totally insane. IMHO There will always be someone who will test positive for some variant of some coronavirus! Especially, since viruses do not die(they go dormant). Does this mean that lockdown restrictions and testing will continue indefinitely?
Well there would be no reason why it would continue after a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated. I'm sure that you have heard that the government is talking about 70-85% before things return to normal. However, staring the government in their faces is 58.3%-vaccinated-UK, which is coming out of their surge following what they called 'Freedom Day' - the day when pretty much all of the restrictions were lifted, and there's no talk of any return to them.

These extreme restriction methods would only make sense, if over 50% of the entire population were infected with this virus. Not less than 1%.
If over 50% of the entire population were infected at the same time?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Is there a SINGLE Republican proposing this sort of stuff? I follow US politics VERY closely, and I haven't heard of any.
I do agree that the vast majority of conservatives/Republicans, do not believe that vaccines and the wearing of masks become mandatory. But not all Republicans. People are not a single party ideology. Both parties can have a similar belief on any given issue. The only people who are truly closed-minded one-dimensional party ideologues, are political fanatics. Their political views will always be limited to us and them. Even if there were no republicans proposing this nonsense, it doesn't mean that all Democrats do. Or, that no Republican would. This is an obvious fallacy.

These proposals expose a lack of common sense, a lack of respect for personal choice and privacy, a poor understanding of the crisis in its proper context, and a total disregard for the consequences of the actions taken. It is only the actions/proposals that is relevant, and NOT the political party. IMHO


Do you mean up to 50% more virulent, or up to 50% more transmissible?
I meant that the virus is 50% more transmissible. Thank you. I don't know what the mortality rate is for this "delta" strain, so I don't know how virulent it really is. Does anyone even know WHAT its mutation is?

You weren't aware that most US States have anti-discrimination law which covers Public Accommodations, including non-essential services? You've never heard of even one single case of a baker who has been sued for refusing to create a wedding cake for a same sex wedding?
My understanding of the federal anti-discriminations laws, is that they were written to protect certain groups in society against individual and structural discrimination, at all levels of society. This means that all states must abide by its legality.

I don't doubt that what you say is true. But I personally, have never heard of a baker being sued for NOT creating a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. Although, I do not agree with same-sex marriages, I can think of many ways to avoid openly discriminating against the wedding, and still make a profit for my business.

If over 50% of the entire population were infected at the same time?
I mean, that on the very same day that Australia has 13M(50%) still active cases of Covid-19. This means 13M Australians with varying stages of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, over a 3 week period. Even with, or without these lockdown restrictions, this could never happen. Unless we make the assumption, that not even one person recovers. Even the Spanish flu only infected(not killed) 33% of the world's' population. And, antibiotics weren't even discovered yet to fight the infections. No pathogen in Australia's history has ever infected over 1% of the population. There are many other health issues far worse than this virus. And, their treatment would not require any lockdowns(obesity, alcoholism, smoking, diabetes, extreme poverty, etc.).

Sorry, it's only smoke-n-mirrors, fear-mongering, and propagandizing disinformation, to justify forcing every man woman and child to be tested and vaccinated. Can you imagine any parent being fined/arrested for refusing to force their perfectly healthy child to be immunized for Covid-19? And, associating anti-vaxxers for Covid-19, to those for early childhood diseases, is a false equivalence fallacy.

Well there would be no reason why it would continue after a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated. I'm sure that you have heard that the government is talking about 70-85% before things return to normal.
You are forgetting that over 97% of people with covid-19 will make a full recovery. They will develop natural antibodies to this disease. Aren't these people already vaccinated? What about the 99% of of all people being tested, who are testing negative for covid-19? Is there any significance here? Should these people also be forced to be vaccinated? There are many ethical and social questions here, that trump any of the government's control agendas. Regardless of its reasons and purpose, every person has the right to control their own body. They have the right to control every system within their body.

No government has the right to hold our freedoms for ransom, or use it as a bargaining tool. You see nothing wrong with the government telling you that it will continue these restrictions, until 70-85% of those being governed comply??? How do you think this percentage would be determined, without even more government intrusions and interference into our privacy? WE are in control of our freedoms, NOT the government. Tell your representatives to look for some other employment after the next election. And you will see just how quickly this will end.


Well not all. The 30% of black New Yorkers who have been vaccinated will be accepted into polite society. The same cannot be said for the other 70%. And the LAUGH is that the ridiculous joke of a human being who runs the city is a hardcore BLM activist!
Politicians will say, and be anything you want them to be. Most are soulless egotistic narcissists. (Except Tulsi Gabbard). I have no idea what a "polite society" even means. But if being accepted into any society that requires compliance against my will, then you can count me out. Regardless of race.
 

chris155au

Active member
I do agree that the vast majority of conservatives/Republicans, do not believe that vaccines and the wearing of masks become mandatory.
I thought that you were talking specifically about politicians. You cited Bill DeBlassio's policy in New York City. Then I mentioned his political affiliation. Then you asked why I mentioned it. So I asked, "is there a SINGLE Republican (politician) proposing this sort of stuff?" If your answer is no, then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat thing. And it's not only New York City is it? Other cities/States are either seriously considering it or have announced something.

These proposals expose a lack of common sense, a lack of respect for personal choice and privacy, a poor understanding of the crisis in its proper context, and a total disregard for the consequences of the actions taken. It is only the actions/proposals that is relevant, and NOT the political party. IMHO
Personal choice is something that few on the left seem
to know anything about. You might be a rarity!

My understanding of the federal anti-discriminations laws, is that they were written to protect certain groups in society against individual and structural discrimination, at all levels of society. This means that all states must abide by its legality.
So do you agree that people should be forced to serve black people?

I don't doubt that what you say is true. But I personally, have never heard of a baker being sued for NOT creating a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. Although, I do not agree with same-sex marriages, I can think of many ways to avoid openly discriminating against the wedding, and still make a profit for my business.
So you believe in personal responsibility, and you are against same sex marriage. I thought that you were a progressive! You sound more like a conservative!

I mean, that on the very same day that Australia has 13M(50%) still active cases of Covid-19. This means 13M Australians with varying stages of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, over a 3 week period. Even with, or without these lockdown restrictions, this could never happen. Unless we make the assumption, that not even one person recovers. Even the Spanish flu only infected(not killed) 33% of the world's' population. And, antibiotics weren't even discovered yet to fight the infections. No pathogen in Australia's history has ever infected over 1% of the population. There are many other health issues far worse than this virus. And, their treatment would not require any lockdowns(obesity, alcoholism, smoking, diabetes, extreme poverty, etc.).
I guess the question really is, at what percentage of infection in a particular area does it begin to overwhelm the hospital system in that particular area?

Sorry, it's only smoke-n-mirrors, fear-mongering, and propagandizing disinformation, to justify forcing every man woman and child to be tested and vaccinated. Can you imagine any parent being fined/arrested for refusing to force their perfectly healthy child to be immunized for Covid-19?
Well, it's NEVER going to result in fines or arrest anywhere in the West, I'm sure of it. The worst that it could possibly get, is you won't be allowed to leave your home for anything unless you're vaccinated. But it could quite easily be argued that this would effectively make people prisoners in their own home - not too dissimilar to being a prisoner in prison.

You are forgetting that over 97% of people with covid-19 will make a full recovery. They will develop natural antibodies to this disease. Aren't these people already vaccinated?
Certainly people who have had COVID should be exempt from any vaccine mandate. Maybe after having had an antibody test. Not that I'm in favour of any mandate.

What about the 99% of of all people being tested, who are testing negative for covid-19? Is there any significance here?
Well that's a VERY interesting point! Yes, that could point to natural immunity in that 99% who test negative, the vast majority of which will be unvaccinated. It seems entirely possible that many of those who test negative have been exposed to the virus but still test negative due to natural immunity. Of course, the other reason could be a false test result. Here a question though - has the negative test rate always been at 99%? Or was it lower at the beginning of the pandemic. You may not have the answer to that, but I think it's an interesting question.

There are many ethical and social questions here, that trump any of the government's control agendas. Regardless of its reasons and purpose, every person has the right to control their own body. They have the right to control every system within their body.
I agree, but this would only be an argument against the government forcing needles into people's arms, which thankfully isn't being proposed!

No government has the right to hold our freedoms for ransom, or use it as a bargaining tool. You see nothing wrong with the government telling you that it will continue these restrictions, until 70-85% of those being governed comply???
What gave you the impression that I see nothing wrong with that? I absolutely DO see something wrong with it, because I'm not convinced that it's based on much science. As I said, staring the government in their faces is 58.3%-vaccinated-UK, which is coming out of their surge following what they called 'Freedom Day' - the day when pretty much all of the restrictions were lifted, and there's no talk of any return to them. So it seems to me that 70-80% is a silly target to set, given what we see in the UK, and given that we're so far off reaching 80%.

How do you think this percentage would be determined, without even more government intrusions and interference into our privacy? WE are in control of our freedoms, NOT the government.
I'm actually calling the government's bluff on this proclamation to strictly only return to normal at 80%. There's simply NO WAY that the lockdowns and restrictions that we've been seeing will continue for the rest of time until 80% is reached! Apart from anything else, it could be political suicide for the government. This is basically a scare tactic I think to get people to get vaccinated.

Politicians will say, and be anything you want them to be. Most are soulless egotistic narcissists. (Except Tulsi Gabbard). I have no idea what a "polite society" even means. But if being accepted into any society that requires compliance against my will, then you can count me out. Regardless of race.
What I mean is, 70% of black New Yorkers will be completely BANNED from going to restaurants, gyms and entertainment venues, and you can bet that this list will grow.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Personal choice is something that few on the left seem
to know anything about. You might be a rarity!
I'm afraid that I am more of an issue kind of person. My opinions are NOT limited by any political ideology. Nor are my actions defined by any single party philosophy. Times changes, and so do my beliefs.

I agree, but this would only be an argument against the government forcing needles into people's arms, which thankfully isn't being proposed!
Really? What if you want to leave the country? But, must prove that you've had a jab to get a passport? How about parents that must force their children to get a jab, or they won't be able to enter the school of their choice? How about proof of jab, before you can be employed to a specific job(healthcare industries). This is happening now!

Well that's a VERY interesting point! Yes, that could point to natural immunity in that 99% who test negative, the vast majority of which will be unvaccinated. It seems entirely possible that many of those who test negative have been exposed to the virus but still test negative due to natural immunity. Of course, the other reason could be a false test result. Here a question though - has the negative test rate always been at 99%? Or was it lower at the beginning of the pandemic. You may not have the answer to that, but I think it's an interesting question.
With all due respect, I think you are just rationalizing your own confirmation bias. In Australia, it is a fact that there have been a total of 26,365,182 Covid-19 tests since the start of this pandemic. There has been a total of 36,045 people who have tested positive. This means, that only 0.14% of all the people tested have tested positive. Or, that 99.96% of all the people tested have tested negative. These are the facts.

I agree that testing for Covid-19 antibodies and other pathogenic markers in asymptomatic carriers, can certainly produce a false negative result. But, I think that this only demonstrates, that over 99% of the Australian population has NOT been infected by the less than 1% of the population who are infected. And, in spite of all the hype and fear-mongering the government and media has been propagandizing about this viral apocalypse, the real truth is just NOT that sensational. The virus is very real, but the fear and hype is manufactured an unjustified.

So do you agree that people should be forced to serve black people?
I'm not sure if you have really thought through this presumptuous question? I believe that no one should be forced to SERVE anyone. But I also believe that no one should be discriminated against, because of their race, gender, political beliefs, age, religion, mental or physical handicaps, or their sexual preferences. You are just making a false equivalence, and a false conclusion here.

So you believe in personal responsibility, and you are against same sex marriage. I thought that you were a progressive! You sound more like a conservative!
I do believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Although I have conservative views regarding same-sex marriages, or other same sex issues, I am progressive in bringing our soldiers home, and in stopping all these regime-change wars. There are some issues where I have conservative beliefs, and some where I am quite progressive. I am NOT defined or limited by any political ideology.

Well, it's NEVER going to result in fines or arrest anywhere in the West, I'm sure of it. The worst that it could possibly get, is you won't be allowed to leave your home for anything unless you're vaccinated. But it could quite easily be argued that this would effectively make people prisoners in their own home - not too dissimilar to being a prisoner in prison.
If these mandatory restrictions ARE implemented, then how would they be enforced or monitored? Without the threat of fines, arrests, or more restrictions on personal liberties, why would any uninfected/unvaccinated person obey any of these health restrictions? Are they now criminal statutes?

I'm actually calling the government's bluff on this proclamation to strictly only return to normal at 80%. There's simply NO WAY that the lockdowns and restrictions that we've been seeing will continue for the rest of time until 80% is reached! Apart from anything else, it could be political suicide for the government. This is basically a scare tactic I think to get people to get vaccinated.
Totally agree. And, this government HAS committed political suicide. They are out.

What I mean is, 70% of black New Yorkers will be completely BANNED from going to restaurants, gyms and entertainment venues, and you can bet that this list will grow.
Does this ban apply only to Black New Yorkers, or to ALL races that have not been vaccinated? How about all those who have recovered from this virus? Are we not just substituting medical discrimination, in place of racial discrimination?
 

chris155au

Active member
I'm afraid that I am more of an issue kind of person. My opinions are NOT limited by any political ideology. Nor are my actions defined by any single party philosophy. Times changes, and so do my beliefs.
Whether you like it or not, you do seem to be much more in line with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, CERTAINLY when it comes to COVID policy. I notice that you didn't have anything in reply to my question: "is there a SINGLE Republican (politician) proposing this sort of stuff?" Perhaps you really don't want to think about praising Republicans! Again, if your answer is no then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy.

Really? What if you want to leave the country? But, must prove that you've had a jab to get a passport?
I don't think that people will be prevented from leaving the country, that wouldn't make any sense. However, people would be prevented from returning, either entirely, or else they would have to quarantine first. I imagine that hotel quarantine won't continue forever, and I understand that a large quarantine facility in Queensland is being built.

How about parents that must force their children to get a jab, or they won't be able to enter the school of their choice?
That's an interesting one, because school attendance is compulsory unless a kid is home schooled. So if a parent with an unvaccinated kid wanted to force the point, they could say that they aren't able to home school. At that point it would seem that the government would have to allow the kid to go to a State school. And I assume that private schools would be free to deny.

How about proof of jab, before you can be employed to a specific job(healthcare industries). This is happening now!
It could be argued that it's not "force" because people have the choice to work in an specific industry which requires vaccination.

In Australia, it is a fact that there have been a total of 26,365,182 Covid-19 tests since the start of this pandemic. There has been a total of 36,045 people who have tested positive. This means, that only 0.14% of all the people tested have tested positive. Or, that 99.96% of all the people tested have tested negative. These are the facts.
Sure, that's the total, but has the negative test rate always been at 99%? Or was it lower at the beginning of the pandemic. You may not have the answer to that, but I think it's an interesting question.

I agree that testing for Covid-19 antibodies and other pathogenic markers in asymptomatic carriers, can certainly produce a false negative result.
Well it can also be due to a faulty test, right?

I'm not sure if you have really thought through this presumptuous question? I believe that no one should be forced to SERVE anyone. But I also believe that no one should be discriminated against, because of their race, gender, political beliefs, age, religion, mental or physical handicaps, or their sexual preferences. You are just making a false equivalence, and a false conclusion here.
I should have asked if you think that it should be illegal to refuse to serve someone on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. Do you?

If these mandatory restrictions ARE implemented, then how would they be enforced or monitored? Without the threat of fines, arrests, or more restrictions on personal liberties, why would any uninfected/unvaccinated person obey any of these health restrictions?
Oh I see what you mean. Yes, there would be a punishment structure in place in order to enforce the rule against unvaccinated people not being allowed to leave their home. But people wouldn't be fined or arrested for simply not getting the vaccine.

Totally agree. And, this government HAS committed political suicide. They are out.
Perhaps. Labor would SURELY have to say EXACTLY what they would have done differently and what difference it would have made. What is it that you think they got wrong? The vaccine rollout? Keeping in mind that it's the States which have been in control of mitigation, ever since the initial national mitigation effort which started in March last year and lasted for a few months. I'm struggling to think where exactly the transition to the States was made.

Does this ban apply only to Black New Yorkers, or to ALL races that have not been vaccinated?
It applies ALL races that have not been vaccinated obviously, but the point is that the vaccination rate is particularly low in the black community of New York City - only 30%. So black people will appear to be even more of a minority in society than they actually are. Black people are 24.3% of New York's population. So then only 30% of that 24.4% will be permitted into what I'm calling "polite society." So basically only ten black people will be allowed in restaurants, gyms and entertainment venues. That's quite sad. Many on the left are NOT happy about this sort of stuff! Like I said, the left will EAT ITSELF over this, and I'm very much looking forward to it! :ROFL1

How about all those who have recovered from this virus?
Well the groundhog murdering Mayor said nothing about them. If you're not vaccinated, you're out of polite society. And again, that's 70% of black people. Sad.

Are we not just substituting medical discrimination, in place of racial discrimination?
I think that's pretty much what is happening!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I don't think that people will be prevented from leaving the country, that wouldn't make any sense. However, people would be prevented from returning, either entirely, or else they would have to quarantine first.
It's more likely that you will be prevented from entering a country, with the onus put onto airlines to make sure you are vaccinated before you get on the flight ... much like they do with visas.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It applies ALL races that have not been vaccinated obviously, but the point is that the vaccination rate is particularly low in the black community of New York City - only 30%. So black people will appear to be even more of a minority in society than they actually are. Black people are 24.3% of New York's population. So then only 30% of that 24.4% will be permitted into what I'm calling "polite society." So basically only ten black people will be allowed in restaurants, gyms and entertainment venues. That's quite sad. Many on the left are NOT happy about this sort of stuff! Like I said, the left will EAT ITSELF over this, and I'm very much looking forward to it! :ROFL1
Since you only mentioned Black New Yorkers, rather than just saying all unvaccinated New Yorkers would NOT be admitted into the "compliant society", I got the wrong idea. This would mean that 1.4M Black New Yorkers would NOT be allowed into a "compliant society", and only 609K Black New Yorkers will be allowed entry. I'm sure that this would be unconstitutional if challenged. We do not chastise a race for the choices made by its members. It's just that Blacks are more easily identifiable. Therefore, they are more easily excluded than say, latins, chinese, Italians, etc. How would the owners know which people were infected or vaccinated? Having a limit of only 10 Black New Yorkers in this "polite Society" rivals even the Jim Crow Laws.

Oh I see what you mean. Yes, there would be a punishment structure in place in order to enforce the rule against unvaccinated people not being allowed to leave their home. But people wouldn't be fined or arrested for simply not getting the vaccine.
Why WOULD people be fined/arrested for choosing to get vaccinated?

I notice that you didn't have anything in reply to my question: "is there a SINGLE Republican (politician) proposing this sort of stuff?" Perhaps you really don't want to think about praising Republicans! Again, if your answer is no then so far, New York City type vaccine mandates are specifically a Democrat policy.
I thought I did. Kay Ivey, Republican governor of Alabama.


I should have asked if you think that it should be illegal to refuse to serve someone on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation. Do you?
If you mean "to serve someone" in the context of providing a service to someone, then YES I do think it is illegal to refuse service to anyone, by discriminating against them. But if you mean "to serve someone" as an indentured servant, a slave, or a servant, than NO, I don't. And, it IS absolutely legal to refuse. Although it is illegal to withhold services to anyone based only on race, gender, disability, sexuality, nationality, religion, or age, THERE ARE STILL SOME EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS.


That's an interesting one, because school attendance is compulsory unless a kid is home schooled. So if a parent with an unvaccinated kid wanted to force the point, they could say that they aren't able to home school. At that point it would seem that the government would have to allow the kid to go to a State school. And I assume that private schools would be free to deny.
Or, they could be fined each day that their child misses school. A parent could wind up deciding whether to vaccinate their child, or to lose their home. In either case, what are the stats that justify making vaccinations an exclusive pre-condition to enter any schools?

It could be argued that it's not "force" because people have the choice to work in an specific industry which requires vaccination.
I think that being vaccinated or not being vaccinated would only be tangential to the job description at best. And, would have zero relevance to the job's qualifications at worse. Let's just say, that being vaccinated would give a person an extreme advantage, over someone who is NOT vaccinated. If you don't like the word forced.

Well it can also be due to a faulty test, right?
Anything is possible, I guess. There are three test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. A test is done to locate any genetic materials of this specific virus in the body. A test is done to look for the presence of the specific antigen(the outer shell) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And, a test is done, to look for the presence of the specific antibody to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is unlikely that all 3 tests would be faulty. Although, those who are asymptomatic for Covid-19, could produce a false negative. Since the virus has NOT produced any immune response to the pathogen yet.

Sure, that's the total, but has the negative test rate always been at 99%? Or was it lower at the beginning of the pandemic. You may not have the answer to that, but I think it's an interesting question.
There undoubtedly have been test results that have been less than 99% negative(or over 1% positive). And some test results that have been 100% negative. I think that it is the average results, that is important for a more accurate assessment. Not simply sampling a specific sample, on a specific day, at a specific location. IMHO

I don't think that people will be prevented from leaving the country, that wouldn't make any sense. However, people would be prevented from returning, either entirely, or else they would have to quarantine first. I imagine that hotel quarantine won't continue forever, and I understand that a large quarantine facility in Queensland is being built.
There are certain reasons that allow a country to prevent anyone from leaving that country. One reason is for health reasons(spreading of a dangerous disease). Otherwise, it would violate the Geneva Convention, to prevent anyone from leaving the country.

"The right may be restricted, either by way of derogation under article 4 of the ICCPR, or to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, as allowed by article 12(3).".

Perhaps. Labor would SURELY have to say EXACTLY what they would have done differently and what difference it would have made. What is it that you think they got wrong? The vaccine rollout? Keeping in mind that it's the States which have been in control of mitigation, ever since the initial national mitigation effort which started in March last year and lasted for a few months. I'm struggling to think where exactly the transition to the States was made.
What a responsible government should have done above all, was NOT to alarm people. They should NOT use the stats from other countries, as any justification for implementing insensitive, impractical, and unnecessary policies and directives. The government should have provided extra resources to the healthcare industry. It should have provided all stats in their proper perspectives. It should have been more open and honest with us. Instead of providing only disinformation, half-truths, fear-mongering, and even turning Australians against other Australians. All this government cares about is control, credit, and power. They have all got to go.

You should listen to other party groups, like Michael O'neil of the Informed Medical Options Party(IMOP). It is time to put common sense back into politics.
 
Top