Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[Maggie5]

Not everyone can be vaccinated (too young, sick, allergic, etc) and not all vaccinations are 100% effective.

Got it.

 

[hodor]

If Jehovah's Witnesses refuse vaccinations they certainly don't do it on religious grounds

 

[greennick]

If Jehovah's Witnesses refuse vaccinations they certainly don't do it on religious grounds

Found an interesting article on it, they actually used to do it on religious grounds however no longer do:

This church has instructed its adherents to refuse transfusions of whole blood and the use of certain blood components, such as red blood cells, plasma, and other components–they consider the use of blood to be a violation of the law of their god. During the 1920’s through 40’s, the church was opposed to vaccination based on their doctrine about human blood. However, by the early 1950’s, the church took a neutral stance about vaccinations until the 1990’s when began to acknowledge the clinical value of vaccinations.

 

[greennick]

I found the only religion apparently actively against vaccinations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Reformed_Church

Members of this church have had a tradition of refusing vaccines going as far back as the early vaccinations for smallpox in the early 1800’s. Most of this early vaccine refusal was because of the observed adverse events with the vaccines of that era (yeah, it’s an ongoing issue for vaccine deniers), although it has evolved into formal belief that vaccines interfere with the relationship with their god. Because of this vaccine refusal, there have been paralytic poliomyelitis, measles, congenital rubella syndrome, and mumps outbreaks. In 2013, amajor outbreak of measles hit a Dutch Reformed community in the Netherlands, with 1226 reported cases. Of the 1,226 cases, 176 (14.4%) had complications including encephalitis (1 case), pneumonia (90 cases) and otitis media (66 cases) and 82 (6.7%) were admitted to hospital, which should debunk that belief that measles isn’t a serious disease.

 

[hodor]

Found an interesting article on it, they actually used to do it on religious grounds however no longer do:

I was unaware of the history, thanks for that. Probably because they didn't understand it at the time and changed their interpretation. Aside from their blood doctrine being entirely arbitrary in my view.

 

[greennick]

I was unaware of the history, thanks for that. Probably because they didn't understand it at the time and changed their interpretation. Aside from their blood doctrine being entirely arbitrary in my view.

Yeah, it's a religion, they're all weird to me.

 

[kolchak]

Whilst I think vacination is a good thing, I still beleive in freedom of choice, undemocratic policy for mine.

 

[swingdog]

Whilst I think vacination is a good thing, I still beleive in freedom of choice, undemocratic policy for mine.

How about freedom of choice whether to pay your taxes?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Slax]

I would threaten anyone who doesn't vaccinate that they will be relocated to Adelaide

We would achieve 100% and many getting immunised twice

Bugger Adelaide, send them to Canberra. Still believe that the choice of Canberra was made by the Victorian government of the day to find the single worst possible spot to build a large city they could find between Melbourne and Sydney, they achieved their aim.

 

[Power Raid]

Bugger Adelaide, send them to Canberra. Still believe that the choice of Canberra was made by the Victorian government of the day to find the single worst possible spot to build a large city they could find between Melbourne and Sydney, they achieved their aim.

when adelaide's new airport was built, it was originally completed without a car park as people would sell their car on the way to the airport as they had no intention of returning.

they also had to ban plastic shopping bags as many who couldn't afford to fly were asphyxiating themselves.

the SA government was forced to respond by building a football stadium, take WOMAD and tour de Adelaide to another level and other initiatives to stop the population drain. This worked and required the construction of car park at the airport.



I hear Canberra and Tassie are doing their best to rival Adelaide but they have much work to do.

 

[Slax]

when adelaide's new airport was built, it was originally completed without a car park as people would sell their car on the way to the airport as they had no intention of returning.

they also had to ban plastic shopping bags as many who couldn't afford to fly were asphyxiating themselves.

the SA government was forced to respond by building a football stadium, take WOMAD and tour de Adelaide to another level and other initiatives to stop the population drain. This worked and required the construction of car park at the airport.



I hear Canberra and Tassie are doing their best to rival Adelaide but they have much work to do.

Tassie would likely think about go to the pub with the full intent of discussing it with others about competing with Adelaide then get completely side tracked after the first mouthful of beer and forget about what they walk in about.

Canberra has set up a sub-committee to develop a plan. The sub-committee is still debating on whether or not they are try to beat Adelaide for the worst major city in Australia to live in or just be on a par. This debate started in 1980 and is expected to hand in a submission about the full scope of the investigation entails in 2017.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Whilst I think vacination is a good thing, I still beleive in freedom of choice, undemocratic policy for mine.

Problem is that it doesn't work as well unless pretty much everyone in the whole population is vaccinated. There's always some that can't be vaccinated, infants for example. Having the rest of the population vaccinated protects these vulnerable groups by slowing down the rate of transmission of disease. Having section of the population who don't vaccinate allows the easier spread of disease where it might reach the vulnerable.

If the majority of the voters think that vaccination is necessary then it's perfectly democratic to make laws like Abbott is proposing. A democracy after all is the tyranny of the majority, the minorities don't get the chance to opt out if they don't like it.

 

[madmug]

Tassie would likely think about go to the pub with the full intent of discussing it with others about competing with Adelaide then get completely side tracked after the first mouthful of beer and forget about what they walk in about.

Canberra has set up a sub-committee to develop a plan. The sub-committee is still debating on whether or not they are try to beat Adelaide for the worst major city in Australia to live in or just be on a par. This debate started in 1980 and is expected to hand in a submission about the full scope of the investigation entails in 2017.

Whilst Brisbane go back to school, for the obvious reason.

 

[raghav]

The referred article, whilst not completely relevant to this thread, makes for very good reading and contemplation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-24/haigh-if-we-were-ever-the-lucky-country-we-arent-now/6411240

 

[Gough]

Nick Bryant wrote something similar a few years back, said we were at risk of becoming a quarry with a view. God forbid, the late Mr. Lee could have been right.

 

[Lebbo73]

I haven't heard anything negative on the bloke for weeks. Seems all he has to do is disappear for his approval rating to close in on labors.

People have the memory span of a goldfish

It must be burning you up inside. How do you go on with living?

 

[raghav]

Don't worry about what a few on this forums think, they will hate ABBOTT no matter what. The polls are turning in ABBOTT"S favour, he will never be well liked because of the media doing a hatchet job on him all the time, but the silent majority can read through the lines and know our media are just scum, lower than car salesman , and the alternative to ABBOTT is Shorten who will take us back to the horrible days of rudd/gillard. The majority wont want a bar of that.

Not to mention a resumption of an influx of economic country shoppers.

 

[Little Big John]

Am I the only one that thinks it weird that we can choose to buy products from whichever country has the lowest price, yet the people making those products are demonised for attempting to choose to live and work in countries with higher pay and better conditions?

 

[romeohwho]

Don't worry about what a few on this forums think, they will hate ABBOTT no matter what. The polls are turning in ABBOTT"S favour, he will never be well liked because of the media doing a hatchet job on him all the time, but the silent majority can read through the lines and know our media are just scum, lower than car salesman , and the alternative to ABBOTT is Shorten who will take us back to the horrible days of rudd/gillard. The majority wont want a bar of that.

Which polls are turning?

 

[Todman]

http://joannenova.com.au/

Results are just in from the first Abbott government Direct Action carbon auctions. The government offered to pay for carbon reduction, and held a reverse auction (where people who bid the lowest price would win). The average price came in at $14 a ton.
The Numbers: The Australian government will spend $660 million to reduce emissions by 47mT. These projects will run for about 7 years, and mean the government is on track to meet the target of 180mT reduction by 2020. — Details are at the Clean Energy Regulator.

All the usual suspects declared it could never work. Instead, “Direct Action” is likely to be wildly cheaper and more effective (at reducing CO2). The catch is, it won’t reward friends of big-government and it won’t punish miners, manufacturers and small businesses – which must be why climate activists don’t like it.

It’s a lot less than the fantasy schemes that use wind and solar power, of which cost estimates vary partly because no one really knows what the lifespan and disposal costs are. One MIT study estimated the cost of abating carbon with wind was about $60 AUD per ton, and the cost of solar was $700 AUD per ton. (Marcantonini, 2013). Another estimate put the price of carbon reduction at South Australian windfarms at $1484 per ton. Pick a number — whatever it is, it’s a lot more than $14.

Direct Action is 5, 10 or 327 times cheaper than The Carbon Tax

The Gillard Government’s carbon tax was advertised as $24 per ton, but it was the price of emitting a ton (which is different from the $14 per ton price of that applies to actual reductions. The carbon tax is a hopelessly indirect way to buy “carbon reduction”. It took $15 billion from Australians and only abated 2.9 million tons of emissions. In a way, Labor’s carbon price ended up being $5310 per ton. There is no denying the distorting effect on the economy of a $15 billion dollar impost. The Carbon Tax applied to everything, hoping to make all energy users more efficient, but there were not many gains to be had across the board. Energy use is fairly inelastic, people were already doing the easy and cheap things. In comparison, Direct Action takes a small slice of tax, and only tries to change the behaviour of a few industries which can make the biggest difference.

 

[swingdog]

http://joannenova.com.au/

Results are just in from the first Abbott government Direct Action carbon auctions. The government offered to pay for carbon reduction, and held a reverse auction (where people who bid the lowest price would win). The average price came in at $14 a ton.
The Numbers: The Australian government will spend $660 million to reduce emissions by 47mT. These projects will run for about 7 years, and mean the government is on track to meet the target of 180mT reduction by 2020. — Details are at the Clean Energy Regulator.

All the usual suspects declared it could never work. Instead, “Direct Action” is likely to be wildly cheaper and more effective (at reducing CO2). The catch is, it won’t reward friends of big-government and it won’t punish miners, manufacturers and small businesses – which must be why climate activists don’t like it.

It’s a lot less than the fantasy schemes that use wind and solar power, of which cost estimates vary partly because no one really knows what the lifespan and disposal costs are. One MIT study estimated the cost of abating carbon with wind was about $60 AUD per ton, and the cost of solar was $700 AUD per ton. (Marcantonini, 2013). Another estimate put the price of carbon reduction at South Australian windfarms at $1484 per ton. Pick a number — whatever it is, it’s a lot more than $14.

Direct Action is 5, 10 or 327 times cheaper than The Carbon Tax

The Gillard Government’s carbon tax was advertised as $24 per ton, but it was the price of emitting a ton (which is different from the $14 per ton price of that applies to actual reductions. The carbon tax is a hopelessly indirect way to buy “carbon reduction”. It took $15 billion from Australians and only abated 2.9 million tons of emissions. In a way, Labor’s carbon price ended up being $5310 per ton. There is no denying the distorting effect on the economy of a $15 billion dollar impost. The Carbon Tax applied to everything, hoping to make all energy users more efficient, but there were not many gains to be had across the board. Energy use is fairly inelastic, people were already doing the easy and cheap things. In comparison, Direct Action takes a small slice of tax, and only tries to change the behaviour of a few industries which can make the biggest difference.

No heavy hitters in first auction keeping price low:

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/clim...ns-are-not-believable-20150426-1mtb94?stb=twt

 

[yibbida]

Which polls are turning?

Roy Morgan?

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6...d to Shorten as ALP Leader for the first time

• Former Liberal Party Leader Malcolm Turnbull is again clearly preferred as Liberal Leader by 38% of electors (up 2% since January 12-13, 2015) well ahead of Deputy Leader Julie Bishop 27% (up 1%) and Prime Minister Tony Abbott 12% (down 2%). This is a record low level of support for Abbott since he became Liberal Leader in December 2009. No other candidate has more than 5% support.

 

[yibbida]

^Bullshit blog.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...uld-cost-20bn-under-direct-action?CMP=soc_567

Taxpayers will have to pay at least $20bn to meet even a low post-2020 emissions reduction target for Australia under the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy, a leading business group has warned.

 

[mellowyellow]

hell frozen over yet?

 

[Lebbo73]

^Bullshit blog.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...uld-cost-20bn-under-direct-action?CMP=soc_567

I think both parties are deliberately screwing us on this carbon emissions mumbo jumbo!