Victorian Covid Outbreak 2021
- Thread starter Magpie45
- Start date
- Tagged users None
... and likely many more people would have died and we'd be angry at the government for not protecting us.
Why would you ever be angry at the government for NOT doing something. The governments role should be to **** off out of our lives as much as practically possible.
That is your philosophy and you can vote accordingly. However the majority of the State you live in have voted for the type of Government we currently have. Even when the Victorian LNP was in power they did not adhere to your philosophy.
Life won't be normal though.
That's a myth that both sides of this discussion don't seem to understand.
Even with a highly vax'd population, COVID will still be rife. Nowhere near as rife as it would be without the Vax, but it will still be rife.
People will still catch it, people will still get sick, and people will still die.
Even if you're vax'd, that will be part of your daily life.
You'll have a far, far lower chance of being sick or dying of course, but sickness and death will be a part of life nonetheless.
So Vax isn't a 'fix' as such. It's a tactical solution to get shit under control until a strategic solution is developed. If that's even possible.
But for the anti-vax crew that just want to open up and for life to be 'normal' again, that's not going to be the case.
Businesses won't be able to function with the amount of sickies people will take, health systems will be screwed, working conditions will change, hie quarantine will become a norm - meaning house prices will continue to soar. Sport will be interrupted regularly as infections hit teams. Some industries will fall as the economy changes.
Life won't be normal. I think the debates around this stuff wouldn't be half as fierce if people accepted that.
Anti-vax people are incredibly naive to think that the world they knew is coming back.
And pro-vax people that think that everyone getting vax'd will get us back to normal are equally as naive.
- Apr 5, 2016
- 8,318
- 19,421
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
What about those that aren't concerned that end up in hospital?
Or do they give up their rights to a hospital bed? Because at some point or another, in your scenario, there's going to be a decision that needs to be made between somebody who has covid and somebody who doesn't that both require the same hospital bed.
But who decides when that is?
HealthCare? Welfare? Schools? Roads? Laws? Policing? National Security? Transport? Trade?
As much as many spruik the anti-government thing, plenty would be completely ****ed if they were left to their own devices.
The people that mainly support a lack of government intervention, are either the Donald Trump's of the world who want to be able to use their inherited wealth to continue to screw people over without pesky laws stopping them, or battlers who just aren't good at life and blame the government for it. Usually these same people have spent their lives blaming other's for their own ineptitude.
Last edited:
I hate the government! They should leave us alone!!!
I just want to go back to normal so I can use all the services that the government provides!
There's no point being derivative, the government obviously provides some basic functions such as infrastructure, public health care, public transport, criminal law, public schools and minimal forms of environmental, business and trade regulation. But the principal point should be - how can the government provide basic societal needs without imposing substantial costs (be it financially or practically) on the populous. Too much has western government strayed into vanity projects.
- Apr 23, 2016
- 35,412
- 51,015
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Part of my point is that no matter what the government does, there will always be people unhappy at their decision. In this case... it's you, in other cases it'll be me. It's not their role to please everybody... that's an impossibility.
So you're cherry picking the things that the government should do, and that suit you - but want them butting out of the stuff that you don't?
Surely you're open to the view that others will have a different set of things that they want and don't want government involvement in?
Until anyone needed a hospital bed for anything other than coronavirus
Then it would be bad luck
- Banned
- #7,014
And people who depend on services (ie visiting doctors, centreline, hospitals, being cared for in nursing homes etc) either dont get to access those services or are exposed to a deadly virus by their careless/uncaring nurses. Like what happened when 800 people died in just a couple months during the first wave.
You're either a troll, or a total ****ing lunatic. Pick one.
- Banned
- #7,015
Why don't you just move to America then.
Sure, but I would consider those to be the objective purposes of government, not out of a personal benefit to me (for example I don't need public healthcare, public transport or public education yet they are clearly within the responsibility of a western democratic government).
You mean the US that is trying to pass a 3.5 trillion spending bill which will impose tax-per-mile cost on driving and automatically tax transactions (on top of ordinary sales tax) above $600, no thank you. I suffer under enough socialism here thanks.
So you reckon the government shouldn't be responsible for building roads, we should just let corporations build whatever roads suit them best. Can see that going well.
What is fair enough, you've lost me.
WorkSafe is a statutory body with all the legal requirements that underlie its very existence.
Self Employed Australia are an advocacy group whose members choose to support the body. Until recently, it has not had a public identity.
Self employed Australia has used the legislation that rules WorkSafe to hold WorkSafe to account as the legislation was designed to allow.
The political allegiances of executives on either side is limited by the legislation, & Mr Radford has to meet the statutory requirements of his office.
To my knowledge there are no similar requirements on the executives of Self Employed Australia.
If Self Employed Australia had not paid close attention to the WorkSafe Act*, the examination of its role in this matter may have never been pubicly scrutinised.
*https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/all-acts-and-regulations
The politicisation of the issue will not stop the legal action as required by the Act.
- May 8, 2007
- 48,686
- 71,373
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #7,020
Sorry, didn't put a sarcasm indicator in
The States abdicating their role as seen in the east coast power debacle.
Victoria cashed in their investment by selling the SECV assets and has effectively abandoned the space.
Transurban is now filling that role in major roads, see the east west link as an example of the failure on both sides of the political fence.
Frankly I have zero idea about the bill, although my quick search suggested there is a $3.5 trillion bill which has absolutely nothing to do with a driving tax, and a separate $1.2 trillion one that includes a pilot program for charging road users per mile spent.
It may or may not be a good use of money, but I don't think transferring to a system where users are charged based on how much they use a public good is an example of 'socialism' - I would've thought the socialist thing to do in this respect would be to charge every single person the same amount, regardless of how much they use it.
8 cents a mile? How is that remotely related to the cost of the road. It's not. It's another form of wealth tax to fund ludicrous green socialist policy. It also disproportionately targets rural individuals who drive far greater distances than inner city types. It's pure socialism used to fund dreams of universal basic income and green new deal industry reductionism.
Given one would assume you are not a US citizen, why do you care what the US Government does enough to post about it in a thread that has nothing to do with the US? I guess the videos that feed you are based over there, but what they do is up to their voters.
