Covid-19 Welcome to Freedom

[Taylor]

Wrongful advertising?
How?

I thought it was clear enough that you said the vaccine and removal of unvaccinated people from the community would mean the rest didn't get it and that I'm saying they are still going to get it - so the promise is false.

But it's the same as the security check in at the airport. If they feel safe, mission mostly accomplished.

We already reduced the fatality of covid with the vaccine by 1 percent.

 

[Opine]

It's not a question of having that right removed, it is question of what happens when one right bumps into another.

It’s not really an individual right to begin with if access can be removed regardless of that individual continuing to belong to that group. In which case how can it be relied on in circumstances of conflict when it bumps into another?

 

[Number37]

Do you lean towards freedom or the illusion of public safety?

In a perfect world where individuals exercise their rights without unduly impacting the rights of others then they should be free to exercise those rights to their fullest extent.
But the world isn't perfect.

 

[Taylor]

In a perfect world where individuals exercise their rights without unduly impacting the rights of others then they should be free to exercise those rights to their fullest extent.
But the world isn't perfect.

We can have that imperfect nature of the world mitigated with the pairing of the responsibility with the right, like they all come with but are usually ignored.

Personally, I think if you don't want to be vaccinated then you can make it your responsibility to ensure you aren't spreading it by regularly testing.

Same as I feel about HIV and needle and partner sharing.

 

[Number37]

I thought it was clear enough that you said the vaccine and removal of unvaccinated people from the community would mean the rest didn't get it and that I'm saying they are still going to get it - so the promise is false.

But it's the same as the security check in at the airport. If they feel safe, mission mostly accomplished.

We already reduced the fatality of covid with the vaccine by 1 percent.

What?
You are adding one and one to get 27.
The right not to get covid is only the right not to get covid.
The right not to get vaccinated is only the right not to get vaccinated.
In a world where covid exists we have to decide what happens when those 2 rights collide.
We achieve the greatest utility by placing the right not to get covid above the right not to get vaccinated.

Sucks if you're an anti-vax nutjob, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

 

[Number37]

We can have that imperfect nature of the world mitigated with the pairing of the responsibility with the right, like they all come with but are usually ignored.

Personally, I think if you don't want to be vaccinated then you can make it your responsibility to ensure you aren't spreading it by regularly testing.

Same as I feel about HIV and needle and partner sharing.

What about the responsibility of the anti-vax nutjobs?
Or do they only get rights and skip the responsibilities queue?

 

[Taylor]

What?
You are adding one and one to get 27.
The right not to get covid is only the right not to get covid.
The right not to get vaccinated is only the right not to get vaccinated.
In a world where covid exists we have to decide what happens when those 2 rights collide.
We achieve the greatest utility by placing the right not to get covid above the right not to get vaccinated.

Sucks if you're an anti-vax nutjob, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

This right to not get covid that you're asserting to does not and cannot exist because your promise of it is flawed, people will get it. Hence the false advertising comment.

What about the responsibility of the anti-vax nutjobs?
Or do they only get rights and skip the responsibilities queue?

It's literally addressed in the post you quoted. Literally in it.

 

[Number37]

It’s not really an individual right to begin with if access can be removed regardless of that individual continuing to belong to that group. In which case how can it be relied on in circumstances of conflict when it bumps into another?

Access?

 

[Number37]

This right to not get covid that you're asserting to does not and cannot exist because your promise of it is flawed, people will get it. Hence the false advertising comment.


It's literally addressed in the post you quoted. Literally in it.

Let me put it to you in numbers.

24,999,900 people benefit from their right not to get covid.
100 anti-vax nutjobs lose their jobs for failing to get vaxxed.

Where is the merit in prioritising the 100 over the 24,999,900?


Right not to get covid isn't the same as you're not going to get covid.
The right not to get covid exists precisely because a guarantee that you won't get covid isn't possible.

It is a means of mitigating the risk, consistent with mitigating that risk is mandatory vaccination.

 

[Opine]

Access?

access to personal freedoms afforded to members of the group.

There’s is no such thing as right not to get vaccinated, it’s merely freedom to chose whether or not to be vaccinated.

 

[Number37]

access to personal freedoms afforded to members of the group.

An individual's right not to get covid never collides with their right not to get vaxxed.
The 2 only collide when they are held by 2 different people.

When that happens the person's right not to get covid trumps the other person's right not to get vaxxed.

 

[Opine]

An individual's right not to get covid never collides with their right not to get vaxxed.
The 2 only collide when they are held by 2 different people.

When that happens the person's right not to get covid trumps the other person's right not to get vaxxed.

Where does the individual right not to get COVID come from? I’m not aware if any such right. There’s a right afforded to a class of persons not to be subject to increase of risk of foreseeable harm, is that what you mean?

 

[Number37]

Where does the individual right not to get COVID come from? I’m not aware if any such right. There’s a right afforded to a class of persons not to be subject to increase of risk of foreseeable harm, is that what you mean?

It is implied from all the actions that have been taken for the last 2 years.
Lockdowns, social distancing, masks etc....we did all that so that people wouldn't get COVID, or do you buy the story it was a power grab by Dictator Dan?

 

[Opine]

It is implied from all the actions that have been taken for the last 2 years.
Lockdowns, social distancing, masks etc....we did all that so that people wouldn't get COVID, or do you buy the story it was a power grab by Dictator Dan?

TBH, I think it is reasonable to argue that an obligation not to increase harm is a right of the individual not to be subject to increased harm; ie therefore an individual right. But without a bill of rights to bed the issue to rest, all we have is a set a freedoms that can be made to give way to other freedoms.

I selfishly agree with Dan’s current power grab because I want my children to be safer than they otherwise may be; so I guess I’m selling out for personal interests.

 

[Sixandahalf]

Wrong. Vaccination increases the protection. It doesnt give you absolute protection.

Plus some people are too unwell to get protected. What about their rights?

Did I say absolute protection or are you jumping to conclusions? Again, the risk is mine alone. Their immune system and immunity doesn't depend on my vaccination status. What of that statement do you not understand? If you're going to get infected after you've taken the vaccine, you're going to get infected.

And some people like me, haven't had so much of sniff in the last 6 years, haven't been to a hospital in 12 years. What about our rights to bodily autonomy? What about our rights to choice?

Mind you, I've had malaria, pneumonia, the very strong strain of the flu once. Never went to the hospital for any for those. I've had my own share of bed ridden experiences. My point is some people already had strong immune systems, why force people to take a vaccine that at this point is equivalent to a strong immune system?

 

[Number37]

TBH, I think it is reasonable to argue that a right not to increase harm is a right of the individual not to be subject to increased harm; ie therefore an individual right. But without a bill of rights to bed the issue to rest, all we have is a set a freedoms that can be made to give way to other freedoms.

I selfishly agree with Dan’s current power grab because I want my children to be safer than they otherwise may be; so I guess I’m selling out for personal interests.

But there are no freedoms as much as there isn't a Bill of Rights.
A declaration of a State of Emergency gives the CHO the power to create & enforce rights.
The right not to get COVID is a clear implication from all the actions that have been taken. There is clearly the force of law behind it.

Freedoms are wishy-washy things that really don't mean anything and cannot be enforced.
If you want freedoms then champion a Bill of Rights.

 

[Sixandahalf]

Why aren't our bodies property of the state?

They provide the security of supply for food and shelter, they supply the medical care needed to keep us functional members of society. We are investments in productivity to either directly contribute or pay in taxes so someone else can.

I don't know Taylor, because then that would be equivalent to being a slave in the new world or in Roman times....

 

[Sixandahalf]

You are conflating.

You can drink as much as you want...but you can't drive.
You can wear whatever you like....but you have to wear your work uniform to work.
You don't have to get a vaccinated, your body your choice....but in order for you to work, it is required that you are vaccinated against Covid. If you don't get vaccinated then there are some jobs you won't be allowed to do.
Just like if you don't have a truck licence you won't be allowed to drive a truck. Nobody is forcing you to get a truck licence. Nobody is forcing you to study medicine, nobody is forcing you to study engineering for 4 years at Uni....but you can't be a doctor unless you do, just like you can't be an engineer.

What about when you go overseas and you're required to get vaccinated?
Is anyone forcing you to get vaccinated? Nope, but if you want to travel, then you have to get vaccinated.

Again, wearing a shirt is different from ingesting chemicals. You can remove the shirt once you're done with it. Chemicals in your body on the other hand, that's a bit hard to do.

You know people had jobs precovid right? The scope on your arguments are a bit short-sighted.

 

[Taylor]

Let me put it to you in numbers.

24,999,900 people benefit from their right not to get covid.
100 anti-vax nutjobs lose their jobs for failing to get vaxxed.

Where is the merit in prioritising the 100 over the 24,999,900?


Right not to get covid isn't the same as you're not going to get covid.
The right not to get covid exists precisely because a guarantee that you won't get covid isn't possible.

It is a means of mitigating the risk, consistent with mitigating that risk is mandatory vaccination.

How far does that extend?

We already know who the violent people are in society, we already know who the mentally unwell ones are, we already know who drinks too much and drives.
Why can't these people be removed from society too?

Did you hear how many sex offenders there were up in the middle of nowhere near where that girl was abducted in Northern WA? All those people are still valid.

But the people who have less than a 2/10 chance of catching it assuming the only people who can move the virus on are unvaccinated (which we know is rubbish) are removed for the perceived benefit of the 8/10.

The estimate is that 5% of people commit 95% of the crime.

 

[Taylor]

I agree with the first part of what you said. Elected governments have to deal with whatever they are faced with.

But it is possible for a democratically elected government to impose authoritarian powers. Such as imposing emergency measures for long periods which suspend normal democratic and legal processes. Parliament not sitting, elected MPs not being able to participate in parliament, peaceful opposition by the public being met with an overhanded police approach. The creation of a two tier society by virtue of "health measures" that the Vic government has fought tooth and nail not to release.

That's never happened before in history. No democratically elected, self empowering group has divided people for public health and then things get worse.

There was one that was close but all the people who voted for that group initially were evil and since we aren't half filled with evil then it must not be the same.

 

[Chief]

How far does that extend?

You can’t catch “drink driving” off a workmate and kill half the residents at your gran’s retirement village with it.

 

[Taylor]

You can’t catch “drink driving” off a workmate and kill half the residents at your gran’s retirement village with it.

Road deaths have exceeded covid deaths so far by 787 to September this year (over the span of 2020 and up to September this year). Domestic violence is almost always linked to alcohol or another substance. The victims there are far younger, sometimes so young as to not be impacted by covid-19.

Have we had an example yet of a retirement village losing half their population to a single outbreak of covid in their over 90% vaccinated 70+ age bracket?

 

[Opine]

This would be where an adequate welfare system would take over.

I think sorted is wanting full compensation for lost income.

 

[Taylor]

I think sorted is wanting full compensation for lost income.

If you factor in the cost of a week of a ICU/HDU bed it could be far, far cheaper to pay people to stay home since there will be no covid spreading if all the unvaccinated people aren't allowed out at all.

Working on that 50,000 figure we would be assuming they all pass through high care wards with $10,000 a night (low estimate, as two nights for my last hospital stay was $16,000) we are looking at $500,000,000 already for one night.

 

[Sixandahalf]

If you factor in the cost of a week of a ICU/HDU bed it could be far, far cheaper to pay people to stay home since there will be no covid spreading if all the unvaccinated people aren't allowed out at all.

Working on that 50,000 figure we would be assuming they all pass through high care wards with $10,000 a night (low estimate, as two nights for my last hospital stay was $16,000) we are looking at $500,000,000 already for one night.

The current hospitalisation rate country wide is only 4%. At 25k cases only 1k are hospitalised. Double that rate and you only have 2k hospitalised at most. I think your numbers are off.