Armageddon Thread

[StringerBellend]

10 minutes ago, Stokz said:

You really like to quote models that predict that the worse possible scenarios. How many of those expert models have proven right? Try a more realistic scenario. 

 

 

Yes I do get why lockdowns are required. Remember when they all said, gives 2 weeks to flatten the curve so our hospitals can be setup. How is it 18months into a pandemic, we haven't prepared ourselves with ICUs beds etc for a major outbreak.

Who are you to say, we need 80% of 12+ or 90% of total population? You say trust the experts, if they are advocating for the 80% of 16+ than why are you saying we need more.

Funny how Barilaro came out and said at 80% unvaxxed would be let in... which probably was the 80% plan and the media went on the attack and then auntie Gladdy had to go on the front foot the next day to cause doubt to that.  If he is right, then what is the point of the Vax passport.

In hindsight definitely should of been a race, but look at the World's best president TM Jacinda, what's NZ vax rate - 36%. Say what you want countries that didn't have significant outbreaks weren't in any rush to get vaccinated. NSW now has a bigger first dose rate than New York. And unfortunately, our vaccination rate would be no where it is now, without this outbreak and lockdown.

Andrew Bogut,.has gone the Ned Zelic too 

Agree it was always a race

Lockdowns bought us time to get vaccinated we wasted that time 

NZ have too, in defence of them their quick lockdown hard has (and to a degree still) works and means the overall length of lockdown is shorter 

NSW did neither, we didn't lockdown and we didn't Vax 

[Stokz]

15 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

Surely based on your individualist stand point you support that rather then waiting until  80-90%

If it is going be only 80% - so are we effectively using vax passports for 3-4 weeks. 

Seems like a massive waste of resources.

If the goal is 90% then ok - I can see that reasoning for that, but no where has it said anything about that our goal to 90%.

3 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

Andrew Bogut,.has gone the Ned Zelic too 

Agree it was always a race

Lockdowns bought us time to get vaccinated we wasted that time 

NZ have too, in defence of them their quick lockdown hard has (and to a degree still) works and means the overall length of lockdown is shorter 

NSW did neither, we didn't lockdown and we didn't Vax 

Who cares who shared the image - it's from La Trobe Financial, not Andrew Bogut.

[sonar]

Won't vax passports only be a concern to those who don't get the jab ? 

If people for whatever reason are morally against the passports they can 1) Join a group to oppose it or 2) Not vote for anyone or any political party that inacts it & 3 ) Polling suggests you would be in a very significant minority.

For me and many others it will be a mute point as I/they will be vaccinated.

Edited September 15, 2021 by sonar

[Stokz]

8 minutes ago, sonar said:

Won't vax passports only be a concern to those who don't get the jab ? 

If people for whatever reason are morally against the passports they can 1) Join a group to oppose it or 2) Not vote for anyone or any political party that inacts it & 3 ) Polling suggests you would be in a very significant minority.

For me and many others it will be a mute point as I/they will be vaccinated.

No it will be the many thousands of businesses that may miss out on 20-30% revenue. And if its more the under 40 group that is non-vaxxed that's a big group that go out and spend big coin on it. Restuarants / Bars / Nightclubs etc.

I've seen so many business's promote - they don't want to discriminate - jab or no-jab.

[sonar]

8 minutes ago, Stokz said:

No it will be the many thousands of businesses that may miss out on 20-30% revenue. And if its more the under 40 group that is non-vaxxed that's a big group that go out and spend big coin on it. Restuarants / Bars / Nightclubs etc.

I've seen so many business's promote - they don't want to discriminate - jab or no-jab.

The thing is it is the individual that will decide whether to be vaccinated or not. That's the choice you have to make. The flip side  & opposite of what you're saying is that those who are vaccinated boycott businesses that that allow unvaccinated people in.

It will happen. Do businesses want to lose as you say 20% or 30% or if those that are vaccinated boycott them then 70% to 80% ?

Edited September 15, 2021 by sonar

[Zelinsky]

1 hour ago, Stokz said:

Who are you to say, we need 80% of 12+ or 90% of total population? You say trust the experts, if they are advocating for the 80% of 16+ than why are you saying we need more.

I am saying "take your pick" - of whichever politicians, experts, opinion makers etc you want to want to align with. Which is what you are doing. And so am I. 

I quoted the numbers above not because I believe that's what needs happen, but to highlight the time lines required to vaccinate X amount of Y of the population. I leave the ins and outs to the experts (see above).

[Cynth]

3 hours ago, Stokz said:

You really like to quote models that predict that the worse possible scenarios. How many of those expert models have proven right? Try a more realistic scenario. 

 

 

Yes I do get why lockdowns are required. Remember when they all said, gives 2 weeks to flatten the curve so our hospitals can be setup. How is it 18months into a pandemic, we haven't prepared ourselves with ICUs beds etc for a major outbreak.

Who are you to say, we need 80% of 12+ or 90% of total population? You say trust the experts, if they are advocating for the 80% of 16+ than why are you saying we need more.

Funny how Barilaro came out and said at 80% unvaxxed would be let in... which probably was the 80% plan and the media went on the attack and then auntie Gladdy had to go on the front foot the next day to cause doubt to that.  If he is right, then what is the point of the Vax passport.

In hindsight definitely should of been a race, but look at the World's best president TM Jacinda, what's NZ vax rate - 36%. Say what you want countries that didn't have significant outbreaks weren't in any rush to get vaccinated. NSW now has a bigger first dose rate than New York. And unfortunately, our vaccination rate would be no where it is now, without this outbreak and lockdown.

Can I just say, those stats are atrociously misleading. They have the death rate as a percentage of the population. That is ridiculous. That assumes every member of the public has been exposed to the virus and contracted it. So dumb. The death rate needs to be as a percentage of those who have contracted it. And the death rate is low because we have been locked down….because less people have been exposed. 
 

The only data that is correct there is the death rate as a proportion of those who have been positive. That is 2.5%. This is many, many times more than the flu or many other diseases. It also doesn’t count those who have had a complication or long Covid. People are now living with the long term effects of this disease. Imagine if the death rate from Polio was the only measure and we didn’t count the ones who became crippled by it. 
 

Tne tweet says, numbers don’t lie. Ummmm, yeah they do if you manipulate them to tell a story that suits you. 

[Wobblies]

58 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Tne tweet says, numbers don’t lie. Ummmm, yeah they do if you manipulate them to tell a story that suits you. 

As the saying goes: There are lies, damn lies and statistics...........and Iv'e got the figures to prove it.

A drunk uses a Lamp post for support not for enlightenment.

[Midfielder]

We all have personal biases. The google world allows anyone to find people / groups who share similar biases to us.

Further, within our media, many journalists to me anyway seem to be on a side, rather than simply reporting. Meaning crazies on both the left and the right can find experts to support their biases.

Its everywhere around us, the belief by maybe up to 40% of the US population that the election was fraud and the democrats stole the election from Trump.

Media organisations equally seem to have chosen sides. Murdoch’s News has very few non-hard-core right people. The ABC not all but some journalist on the ABC seem to see its their role to counter the never-ending right push by News. 

IMO and I could be wrong, the jab or no jab will be decided by the various State Gov’s industrial courts. The arguments pertaining to a person’s right not to have a jab will be set against the industrial laws that say an employer must provide an employee with a safe working environment. 

Consider someone who has a fragile person at home, and does not want to catch cov and take it home, or even a fragile person at work. Industrial law or my understanding of them would say to protect against catching cov at work, you need to be jabbed. 

In the meantime the arguments, selective reporting, selective data grabs, etc will dominate to support what side your biases places you.

For me when the far left and the far right agree we are all in trouble, and between the far left freedom demands, and the far right its not real and lets get back to business both arguing against passports and getting jabbed. 

 I fear it will be difficult to get a broadly accepted expert or group to follow as selective reporting and data gathering complete with individual and organisational biases will mean having a generally agreed position near impossible to arrive at. 

 

[marron]

The ABC is increasingly following the Gov line and is probably closer to Murdoch editorially than it has ever been.

 

We have no far left. We do have a far right. But I think you mean the unions that are arguing for the rights of their workers. Those particular unions will not make much headway I suspect, especially as their ability to negotiate has been gutted. 

In any case, yes, there is an issue with people unable to accept evidence as truthful or in good faith. A very neat trick pulled by those wishing to manipulate people. 

[StringerBellend]

7 hours ago, Stokz said:

If it is going be only 80% - so are we effectively using vax passports for 3-4 weeks. 

Seems like a massive waste of resources.

If the goal is 90% then ok - I can see that reasoning for that, but no where has it said anything about that our goal to 90%.

Who cares who shared the image - it's from La Trobe Financial, not Andrew Bogut.

Hey,

Firstly the Bogut bit was a joke, but what is it with sportsman going this way? Triosi, Zelic etc.

I think I posted before about 80% still needing restrictions but thought I'd take a different approach

Things we agree on:

- People getting seriously ill sometimes resulting in death from COVID is a bad thing and also very real

- The hospitals getting over loaded would be very bad too

- Lockdown masks etc. do reduce the level of COVID in the community

- Lockdown and reducing peoples freedom of movement sucks  and not something any of us want

- The covid vaccine passport will be expensive and pain in the arse to administrate, and if we don't need to do it, or it if it adds little benefit then we shouldn't do it

- People need to take an element of responsibility for their own actions

-  ideally we would all like to be free as soon as possible. 

- Sotirio is not a very good footballer

Things I think we agree on :

- The vaccine massively reduces the chance of serious illness and death (and therefore hospital overload0

- It roughly halves the likelihood of getting it 

- Playing with a back three is crap

- Can we also accept that the higher the rate of vaccination the lower the chance of hospital overload and other bad stuff? 

Things we don't agree on:

What  you do next? 

For me this is the  trade-off

A) You can wait until the vax level means that Covid levels and illness will be sufficiently low that the hospitals will be fine. That number isn't 80% (of adults only) it's probably 90+%.  Has the positive of no passports, but the negative of nobody gets freedoms until we get 90% which will take a long time (especially with Eric Clapton and Ned Zelic on the case)

Personally I'd prefer to wait, but it does mean finding away to push the number up.

B)  you go with a lower number 80% and see what happens, likely will cause illness and hospital overloads

That's a bit crap as people will get ill and hospitals will overload

or

C) You go with 80% but also keep some additional controls on the 20% to mitigate some of the risk on hospitals.

That needs a passport, but on the + side, gives people freedom sooner, reduces the load on hospitals, and gives freedom to those that made the effort to get vaccinated, while encouraging the those that didn't to go do it, (which drives you to A eventually)

D) Stuff it open up everyman for himself

- people die not what we want

Also though if you aren't getting vaccinated then, is it really the passport you are objecting too? Or do you basically just want the benefit of the benefits, of the other 80% getting vaccinated without paying the price (or taking the personal risk). i.e. if you aren't willing to get vaccinated then your view on the passport is kind of irrelevant

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by StringerBellend

[marron]

Is a passport that hard to administer? my understanding is it will be done through the app, it's all there already pretty much. Scan a qr code and get a tick or a cross. 

[Midfielder]

35 minutes ago, marron said:

The ABC is increasingly following the Gov line and is probably closer to Murdoch editorially than it has ever been.

 

We have no far left. We do have a far right. But I think you mean the unions that are arguing for the rights of their workers. Those particular unions will not make much headway I suspect, especially as their ability to negotiate has been gutted. 

In any case, yes, there is an issue with people unable to accept evidence as truthful or in good faith. A very neat trick pulled by those wishing to manipulate people. 

No I am not.

This is how I think it will play out.

Say an Employer either government or large private company, insists every employee is double jabbed to attend the work place. Assume an employee does not want the jab, but still wants to go to work.

The employee would take the employer to court for the right not to get the jab and I assume sight legally you cannot be forced to get the jab.

The employer's defense would I assume be state gov work and safety laws / regulations, which say and employer has to provide and a safe work place for an employee.

The court will then have to decide which law to enforce. Further if the un-jabbed employee represents a health risk to other employees because of not having the jab... 

The result of this case will then IMO spread to things like airline travel, inter state coach and rail travel... 

However this is how I see it being played out, and I could be wrong and it go in a totally different direction.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Midfielder

[marron]

Where is the far left connection...?

[Midfielder]

22 minutes ago, marron said:

Where is the far left connection...?

Are you talking to me about how I think the courts will decide the issue... if so ... there is no left or right in the court case.

The courts will be called upon to make a decision and will look to see what various laws say..and the evidence provided to them by the parties..

As a general principal Fed law normally over rules state law...  industrial law is far more state based... whereas independence rights are mostly Fed Law..

Industrial laws clearly state and has a lot of support that employers have to provide a safe working environment for their employees ....

The right not to get vaxed is a Fed law... so does the right not to get vaxed over rule the state laws to provide a safe workplace.

The courts and I am sure which way it decides it will be appealed... but the courts will call evidence I assume from medical people and then make their decision.

Assume the courts decide to support the employer and say they have the right to insist on the jab and this is based on a duty of care because of the possible effects of a person catching cov.

If this is the case, other areas will follow the precedent set in the industrial courts, and say the management team of stadiums will say we have a duty of care to the crowd and using the precedent in the industrial courts will say unless vaxed you cannot attend,.... and so will travel companies etc...

As I said thats how I see it playing out... 

Who takes the legal action in the first place is anyone's guess... but I am sure the defenses teams are already deep in planning ...

But equally it may not happen and I could be wrong... 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Midfielder

[sonar]

My guess is that the High Court will rule in favour of any health legislation the states impose as they did for WA when sued by Morrison and Palmer

[marron]

No, I'm talking about how you said the far left and the far right both don't want vaccines - you seemed to be inferring that that's where the test case will come from. You probably weren't, so my bad.

Sorry, I know it's a side issue, but this idea that there is a far left having an impact on anything is a pernicious one.

Edited September 16, 2021 by marron

[Midfielder]

Maron & Sonar

I made a slight mistake...

The industrial acts today are based on Fed Law or most are... not state Law...

Also the Work Health & Safety Act is a Fed Law..

How it will play out is what I have said above except the states won't be involved..

 

 

 

 

[marron]

1 hour ago, marron said:

Is a passport that hard to administer? my understanding is it will be done through the app, it's all there already pretty much. Scan a qr code and get a tick or a cross. 

I recognise that access to the technology and so on will be an issue without doubt.

But I've heard some things about going back to school, and I assume that the thinking will be similar statewide, should there be need of ways of checking vaccine status, that that's how it's going to be.

[Midfielder]

1 minute ago, marron said:

No, I'm talking about how you said the far left and the far right both don't want vaccines - you seemed to be inferring that that's where the test case will come from. You probably weren't, so my bad.

Sorry, I know it's a side issue, but this idea that there is a far left having an impact on anything is a pernicious one.

You are right, the far left in Australia is relatively small and has limited power... the far right on the other hand is IMO a real worry... especially now Clive is on the loose..

My comment about the far left on vaxed is there some on the far left arguing rights about not having to have the jab... one of my clients would stop coal mining tomorrow, open the country to all refugees etc... he has a small group arguing rights... its not many and they are not that loud...  

 

[marron]

Not far left either

[Davo]

Even if the courts rule that you can’t stop someone from working if they’re unvaccinated, the employer would still be required to ensure the safety of their employees and customers.

My guess is that in some cases they would make the safeguards so onerous that the unvaccinated won’t want to work there. I could see separate break areas, masks at all times, negative tests every three days, etc.

[StringerBellend]

46 minutes ago, Midfielder said:

You are right, the far left in Australia is relatively small and has limited power... the far right on the other hand is IMO a real worry... especially now Clive is on the loose..

My comment about the far left on vaxed is there some on the far left arguing rights about not having to have the jab... one of my clients would stop coal mining tomorrow, open the country to all refugees etc... he has a small group arguing rights... its not many and they are not that loud...  

 

That really doesn't seem that far left, unrealistic maybe but hardly extreme

On the right we have Storming a US capital building trying to overthrow an election 

On the left we have handing out socialist worker at Newtown station to disinterested commuters 

[marron]

Yeah, that's not far left.

If you believe the government should behave differently, that's not far left.

[marron]

20 minutes ago, Davo said:

Even if the courts rule that you can’t stop someone from working if they’re unvaccinated, the employer would still be required to ensure the safety of their employees and customers.

My guess is that in some cases they would make the safeguards so onerous that the unvaccinated won’t want to work there. I could see separate break areas, masks at all times, negative tests every three days, etc.

Yep, I'd say so.

 

[Carns]

I've heard mention of businesses refusing entry to non-vaxxed under property law. As in, the right to refuse you entry to their property on health and safety grounds etc. Could this also apply to employees? Or only potential customers?

[marron]

It appears to apply to employees of the department of education, put it that way.

[Midfielder]

KInda got caught in up in some research on this ... funny how it starts you think you know the law... then you find its not quite right...

So assuming my assumptions about person at a work place told to get vaxed and says no and sues for the  right not to get vaxed but still go to work.

 Four different laws in place.

Over the top is industrial law

Next is the national health and safety act

Next are the federal privacy provisions. 

Under the health and safety regulations any organisations not only an employer is allowed to take or more to the point is required to take ""reasonable steps"" to ensure safety...

Its reasonable to say, Wear a Musk, Social Distance and get Vaccinated.

The industrial acts can rely on the reasonable tests in the Health & Safety act.

What the employer must do is ensure privacy of the employee .

It seems to me the reasonable test under the health and safety regs support the right to demand a person gets vaxed.

Over the top of all this is the Australian Constitution  and could rights within the Constitution be used to over rule the Health and Safety regs... IMO unlikely.

As I said, me thinks it will be decided in the Federal Court and appealed to the high court but will not make the high court.

Then the result on the industrial court is used across a whole range of other actives...

Back to tax law now, ... twas fun to do a little research ...

But remember as I have also said... I could be wrong...

 

   

[Cynth]

15 minutes ago, Midfielder said:

KInda got caught in up in some research on this ... funny how it starts you think you know the law... then you find its not quite right...

So assuming my assumptions about person at a work place told to get vaxed and says no and sues for the  right not to get vaxed but still go to work.

 Four different laws in place.

Over the top is industrial law

Next is the national health and safety act

Next are the federal privacy provisions. 

Under the health and safety regulations any organisations not only an employer is allowed to take or more to the point is required to take ""reasonable steps"" to ensure safety...

Its reasonable to say, Wear a Musk, Social Distance and get Vaccinated.

The industrial acts can rely on the reasonable tests in the Health & Safety act.

What the employer must do is ensure privacy of the employee .

It seems to me the reasonable test under the health and safety regs support the right to demand a person gets vaxed.

Over the top of all this is the Australian Constitution  and could rights within the Constitution be used to over rule the Health and Safety regs... IMO unlikely.

As I said, me thinks it will be decided in the Federal Court and appealed to the high court but will not make the high court.

Then the result on the industrial court is used across a whole range of other actives...

Back to tax law now, ... twas fun to do a little research ...

But remember as I have also said... I could be wrong...

 

   

Tonight I got an email from work mandating frontline employees to get the vaccine. Statewide. They quoted the health and safety laws as their justification. They have said first vax needs to be done by late October, second in January. 

[Cynth]

This is fun…..

https://fb.watch/82WTqqlfJ2/