Covid 19 (OPEN DISCUSSION)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

That's a nanny state. Helmets and seatbelts don't hurt anyone other than the person not wearing them.
I don’t believe this to be true.

Let’s say seatbelts aren’t legislated. What if someone runs a red light and you t-bone them. They’re not wearing a seatbelt, they die. Are you up for manslaughter? Even if they would have survived with a belt on?

What if it’s not so clear cut as them running a red light. What if it’s a typical accident, it’s not clear who was at fault. You’re in a seatbelt and survive, the other person isn’t and dies. Are you up for charges now, because you wore yours and they didn’t? If they’d been wearing it it would be an insurance claim but now it’s a prison sentence?

What about something even simpler - the families of a car crash victim or bike accidents. No sorry mate, dad isn’t coming home ever again, but I’m sure you’ll sleep well knowing you’re not growing up in a nanny state.

There’s a very good reason governments legislate helmets and seat belts. The people that think “ah it’ll only affect me” are wrong but they’ll usually be too dead to see the consequences, leaving everyone else to deal with their cavalier bullshit. It’s not about abdicating personal responsibility but acknowledging that other people exist.
 
yes, infection...’catching‘ covid.

the rate at which being double or triple dosed preventing hospitalisation or death is much higher.
This is a problem with the unachievable aim of 100% eradication. Happy days and political smiles, but it allows the normalisation of an irrational contextutar conversation.

The natonal (less WA it seems) approach is to normalise behaviour with limited restrictions designed to ensure a managable load on the hospital system. For example - once NSW hit an adequate level of vaccination - no proof of vaccination required. Sleep with the lights on if you wish, but life goes on reasonably normally and the risk is mitigated, not eradicated. Why - because it cannot be eradicated and the collateral costs of trying to are far too high.
 
I don’t believe this to be true.

Let’s say seatbelts aren’t legislated. What if someone runs a red light and you t-bone them. They’re not wearing a seatbelt, they die. Are you up for manslaughter? Even if they would have survived with a belt on?

What if it’s not so clear cut as them running a red light. What if it’s a typical accident, it’s not clear who was at fault. You’re in a seatbelt and survive, the other person isn’t and dies. Are you up for charges now, because you wore yours and they didn’t? If they’d been wearing it it would be an insurance claim but now it’s a prison sentence?

What about something even simpler - the families of a car crash victim or bike accidents. No sorry mate, dad isn’t coming home ever again, but I’m sure you’ll sleep well knowing you’re not growing up in a nanny state.

There’s a very good reason governments legislate helmets and seat belts. The people that think “ah it’ll only affect me” are wrong but they’ll usually be too dead to see the consequences, leaving everyone else to deal with their cavalier bullshit. It’s not about abdicating personal responsibility but acknowledging that other people exist.
I agree, the importance of acknowledging that others exist is rarely thought of. To build further on your point one could highlight the impact that a fatal car accident has on first responders whether that's a member of the public performing CPR and or The Police and crash investigators.
Imagine having the responsibility of unexpectedly knocking on the door of an immediate widow to inform them that there loved one has tragically died in an accident (that was avoidable).
Now let's look at the those that work within the hospital system currently, ambulance officers, nurses and doctors. These tragic and potentially avoidable COVID deaths are occurring at a rate of 30 to 40 plus people everyday in one state alone. Imagine the impact of going to work and being under the duress in wondering how many people are going to die today on my shift? Before anyone counter argues that's part of the job then I'd counter argue back that often the people that take up the roles in community health do so because they genuinely care for people and want to make a positive difference in society and because they genuinely care their vulnerabilities are much closer to the surface than others.
Very few accidents/deaths only affect the victim, there's a ripple affect to many other people, that is why Governments need to implement rules, monitor and even implement restrictions to maintain societal order.
 
Africa? Lowest vacc rate and still lower death rate. Sweden? No lock downs at all, same numbers. Florida in USA, no diff from heavily locked down California or NY.

Don't get me wrong, McGowan was right to lock us down the first time and even a couple subsequent. We had that luxury at the time. That time has since passed.
Lol. Sweden has 16,000 deaths, population of 10m, we would be equivalent if had 40,000+ deaths given our population.

Africa hasn’t reported accurate numbers in anyway.
 
Africa? Lowest vacc rate and still lower death rate. Sweden? No lock downs at all, same numbers. Florida in USA, no diff from heavily locked down California or NY.

Don't get me wrong, McGowan was right to lock us down the first time and even a couple subsequent. We had that luxury at the time. That time has since passed.
Lol. Sweden has 16,000 deaths, population of 10m, we would be equivalent if had 40,000+ deaths given our population.

Africa hasn’t reported accurate numbers in anyway.
 
I don’t particularly care much about people who behave selfishly and end up dying, certainly not a 50 year old father of four who quits his job and publicly tells the governor to kiss his ass, then gets Covid and dies from it and leaves his wife to raise their kids without him. I do feel quite bad for people who have gotten vaccinated and still died.

As for WA, my main concern is the health system since I know a lot of people (particularly my wife) who work in public hospitals and will be most impacted as case numbers surge. Unvaccinated people are something like 30-40x more likely to be hospitalised than people who are vaccinated and boosted, so their selfishness will put an enormous strain on problem I care about and put them at increased risk of contracting the virus (and if my wife gets it, there’s a good chance than my 6 week old son could get it). So while it seems like your only barometer for how well a government is doing is whether or not they allow you to travel freely, some of us value things like not having lots of people die and not having the health system overloaded and being able to have as close to a normal pre-pandemic life as possible at home in WA.

So your only concern is your wife who is supposedly vaccinated and your child getting it and her being busy.. ok got it..
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lol. Sweden has 16,000 deaths, population of 10m, we would be equivalent if had 40,000+ deaths given our population.

Africa hasn’t reported accurate numbers in anyway.

So their death rate corresponds almost exactly to the number i posted 99.84% survival rate using our numbers. Most would be over 65, if not over 75 with co morbidities.

Source for Africa's misreporting?
 
So their death rate corresponds almost exactly to the number i posted 99.84% survival rate using our numbers. Most would be over 65, if not over 75 with co morbidities.

Source for Africa's misreporting?

Do you think 40,000 COVID deaths would have been acceptable in Australia? That's what would have happened if we'd followed Sweden's approach.

Florida has had 65,000 deaths, with a smaller population that Australia. Should we have followed their approach?

California has had 80,000 deaths, more than Florida, but they have twice the population, and as you said have had further restrictions than Florida. Even though you tried to say they had similar deaths, it's a bit misleading given the population size.

As to Africa, it's not a secret.


 
Do you think 40,000 COVID deaths would have been acceptable in Australia? That's what would have happened if we'd followed Sweden's approach.

Florida has had 65,000 deaths, with a smaller population that Australia. Should we have followed their approach?

California has had 80,000 deaths, more than Florida, but they have twice the population, and as you said have had further restrictions than Florida. Even though you tried to say they had similar deaths, it's a bit misleading given the population size.

As to Africa, it's not a secret.


You have valid questions here.

The whole conversation needs to take into account proportionality and down stream concequences.

Ie. How many deaths, forms of abuse, future poverty that may cause more deaths and abuse, are caused my Lockdowns and or the lack of ability to gain medical help for minor issues that become big ones. Also seems to be some evidence that a covid death, doesnt necessarily mean they died because of covid. All of these sorts of factors.

Then there's also the subset of the population that is willing to die on their sword for freedom
 
I am very sceptical of the stats quoted mcclownan which says 2 jabs offer 4% protection but if you get another jab of the same stuff it jumps to 64%
emoji848.png


Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

That's cause he made them up on the spot or nore likely had faulty info heading in. Vaccines working
Do you think 40,000 COVID deaths would have been acceptable in Australia? That's what would have happened if we'd followed Sweden's approach.

Florida has had 65,000 deaths, with a smaller population that Australia. Should we have followed their approach?

California has had 80,000 deaths, more than Florida, but they have twice the population, and as you said have had further restrictions than Florida. Even though you tried to say they had similar deaths, it's a bit misleading given the population size.

As to Africa, it's not a secret.


https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...ica-vastly- underestimated-warn-researchers/


It still might happen. In our case it is still too early to know. In 12 months time we could be at or close to that 40k number.

There is a new international report right now that shows.lockdowns have "little to NO effect on reducing deaths from Covid-19"

The only place they have arguably worked is the most isolated capital in the world, and that time has now passed.

The miners are already calling for a change to Covid rules here because of Omicron. They want no quarantine for casual contacts w no symptoms and seven days for close contacts. When it's rife, all they will want is a negative PCR test.

This thing will be over in 12 months. The UK has wisely already thrown in the towel on the show me your papers and lockdown rules.
 
Do you think 40,000 COVID deaths would have been acceptable in Australia? That's what would have happened if we'd followed Sweden's approach.

Florida has had 65,000 deaths, with a smaller population that Australia. Should we have followed their approach?

California has had 80,000 deaths, more than Florida, but they have twice the population, and as you said have had further restrictions than Florida. Even though you tried to say they had similar deaths, it's a bit misleading given the population size.

As to Africa, it's not a secret.



So California has twice the population and twice the deaths, BUT maximum fear and paranoia, i.e. masks, lockdowns, closures of schools and treating people like Leppers.

Florida, half the popn and has two thirds the death rate, and has more elderly people. This with no lockdowns, no masks, no restriction of any kind really, and largely comparable.

You are making my case for me. The lockdowns DO NOT WORK outside of a limited circumstance in the very SHORT TERM.
 
You have valid questions here.

The whole conversation needs to take into account proportionality and down stream concequences.

Ie. How many deaths, forms of abuse, future poverty that may cause more deaths and abuse, are caused my Lockdowns and or the lack of ability to gain medical help for minor issues that become big ones. Also seems to be some evidence that a covid death, doesnt necessarily mean they died because of covid. All of these sorts of factors.

Then there's also the subset of the population that is willing to die on their sword for freedom


New large scale study out today. Lockdowns prevented excess Covid deaths by only 0.20%. Nowhere near enough to justify the other detrimental downstream effects as you put it.

The effect of lockdowns is broad and insidious. Just some:

  • Mental health deterioration. Look at increased suicide numbers in young cohort in the USA for example.
  • Devastating economic consequences to small business. That's always good for mental health
  • Missed early diagnosis of cancers due to inability to see your doctor.
  • People not being able to attend funerals or see dying loved ones.
  • Creeping authoritarianism
  • Division in our society
  • Stunting of early childhood development. Here is an interesting example. In the USA there has been an over 300% increase in demand for speech therapy for young children. Why? They can't see peoples mouths moving when they speak. Seems it is critical for language learning.

The list is endless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top