Sydney.... fvcked

All things Rugby
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
What's morally dodgy from my perspective in the utter disdain for the collective welfare of our community being shown by those driving dangerous misinformation and beliefs.
Sure... fair call.

Find a way to deal with that without breaking the law or infringing human rights, though.
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 6729
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Clogs »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:37 am
grievous wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:35 am
Sky News Australia suspended from YouTube
By Angus Thompson
Sky News has been suspended from uploading content to YouTube for a week after the video and livestreaming platform claimed the media organisation breached its COVID-19 misinformation standards.

In a statement issued to Nine newspapers this afternoon, a Youtube spokesperson said the website had taken steps against Sky, including removing videos from the media outlet’s online channel and issuing a ‘strike’ against it, causing it to be temporarily suspended from uploading new content.

“We have clear and established COVID-19 medical misinformation policies based on local and global health authority guidance, to prevent the spread of COVID-19 misinformation that could cause real-world harm,” a YouTube spokesperson said in a statement.

“We apply our policies equally for everyone regardless of uploader, and in accordance with these policies and our long-standing strikes system, removed videos from and issued a strike to Sky News Australia’s channel.”

YouTube has not said what videos published by Sky it removed, but the platform doesn’t allow content medical misinformation about COVID-19 “that poses a serious risk of egregious harm in contradiction with local and global health authorities’ guidance about COVID-19 treatment, prevention, transmission, and social distancing.”

:lol: :lol: :thumbup:

If they attempted to communicate anything that caused doubt and concern about vaccines which resulted in fewer people getting vaccinated then they should be banned indefinitely.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 15168
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by UncleFB »

The reality is that we don't need this discussion as the police are just chasing down and vaccinating people.

https://twitter.com/CarrieQThinks/statu ... _&ref_url=

x(
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19387
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Farva »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
What's morally dodgy from my perspective in the utter disdain for the collective welfare of our community being shown by those driving dangerous misinformation and beliefs.
Sure... fair call.

Find a way to deal with that without breaking the law or infringing human rights, though.
Exclude them from society. They can’t go to bars or restaurants, or the movies, into shopping centres, etc. it’s then not infringing their rights to not get vaccinated. It also doesn’t infringe private businesses from their rights either of having to deal with someone not vaccinated.
It becomes living with the outcome of your decisions.
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

Why does some idiots 'right' to not get vaccinated trump my right to not be subject to lockdowns, to be prevented from earning a living or be at risk of mental issues?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:31 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
What's morally dodgy from my perspective in the utter disdain for the collective welfare of our community being shown by those driving dangerous misinformation and beliefs.
Sure... fair call.

Find a way to deal with that without breaking the law or infringing human rights, though.
Exclude them from society. They can’t go to bars or restaurants, or the movies, into shopping centres, etc. it’s then not infringing their rights to not get vaccinated. It also doesn’t infringe private businesses from their rights either of having to deal with someone not vaccinated.
It becomes living with the outcome of your decisions.
Vaccine passport.

No entry without it.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Brumbie_Steve wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:32 am Why does some idiots 'right' to not get vaccinated trump my right to not be subject to lockdowns, to be prevented from earning a living or be at risk of mental issues?

Because of basic human rights. Lockdowns are a political choice and nothing to do with “rights”.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:31 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
What's morally dodgy from my perspective in the utter disdain for the collective welfare of our community being shown by those driving dangerous misinformation and beliefs.
Sure... fair call.

Find a way to deal with that without breaking the law or infringing human rights, though.
Exclude them from society. They can’t go to bars or restaurants, or the movies, into shopping centres, etc. it’s then not infringing their rights to not get vaccinated. It also doesn’t infringe private businesses from their rights either of having to deal with someone not vaccinated.
It becomes living with the outcome of your decisions.

Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:37 am
Brumbie_Steve wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:32 am Why does some idiots 'right' to not get vaccinated trump my right to not be subject to lockdowns, to be prevented from earning a living or be at risk of mental issues?

Because of basic human rights. Lockdowns are a political choice and nothing to do with “rights”.
I am not sure that crackpots have a 'rights' appeal in our system. You should got to one of the Brit covid threads where your deep special expertise is more relevant.
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
What's morally dodgy from my perspective in the utter disdain for the collective welfare of our community being shown by those driving dangerous misinformation and beliefs.
Sure... fair call.

Find a way to deal with that without breaking the law or infringing human rights, though.
I'm not suggesting that they cannot receive hospital treatment if they require it for Covid. But I don't think that those who choose to continue dangerous, anti-social behaviour should be able to leverage of the majority that do the right thing when their decisions come back to bite them. Not being covered by Medicare if they do require hospitalisation with no vaccination isn't contravening their human rights. Just providing consequences for their choices. It's about time society as a whole stops making allowances for the selfishness of a dangerous minority.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:45 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.
And from memory, albeit from some time ago. In terms of human rights in which could be impinged vaccination status isn't one of them.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19387
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am
Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:31 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
What's morally dodgy from my perspective in the utter disdain for the collective welfare of our community being shown by those driving dangerous misinformation and beliefs.
Sure... fair call.

Find a way to deal with that without breaking the law or infringing human rights, though.
Exclude them from society. They can’t go to bars or restaurants, or the movies, into shopping centres, etc. it’s then not infringing their rights to not get vaccinated. It also doesn’t infringe private businesses from their rights either of having to deal with someone not vaccinated.
It becomes living with the outcome of your decisions.

Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
You are still allowed to go to public spaces and public venues. Private businesses are then just granted the right to decide whether they allow unvaccinated people to use their facilities. Once the insurance premiums are added to those businesses that want to allow unvaccinated people then they will quickly not allow them.
There would be anti discrimination laws at the moment preventing that but why is someone opting out of a vaccine and thereby endangering the population, and hence driving up the insurance premium a business will need to pay, discrimination.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:45 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.


Agreed , prisons etc. However we’ve as society’s in the west taken this exceptionally seriously and written huge controls and limitations to protect even criminals rights.

That level of care isn’t being suggested here at all.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:54 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:45 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.


Agreed , prisons etc. However we’ve as society’s in the west taken this exceptionally seriously and written huge controls and limitations to protect even criminals rights.

That level of care isn’t being suggested here at all.
It's an emotive topic and it's hard to cut through and find clarity.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

You are still allowed to go to public spaces and public venues.
The are declarations are quite detailed on what society means .

Using corporates to break these tenets is even more appalling than a government discussion and a full democracy at work.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:54 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:45 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.


Agreed , prisons etc. However we’ve as society’s in the west taken this exceptionally seriously and written huge controls and limitations to protect even criminals rights.

That level of care isn’t being suggested here at all.
It's an emotive topic and it's hard to cut through and find clarity.

Basic Human rights are non negotiable in their existence. Damm right that’s emotive
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
You are still allowed to go to public spaces and public venues.
The are declarations are quite detailed on what society means .

Using corporates to break these tenets is even more appalling than a government discussion and a full democracy at work.
Farva isn't specifically suggesting that... he's suggesting that simple market forces centred on the cost of entertaining anti vaxxers will create a natural limit to the type of exposure we regard as dangerous.

there's nothing undemocratic about allowing a business owner to protect their business, right?
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:59 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:54 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:45 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:39 am Full access to society is one of the basic human rights we’ve until now subscribed to.
Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.


Agreed , prisons etc. However we’ve as society’s in the west taken this exceptionally seriously and written huge controls and limitations to protect even criminals rights.

That level of care isn’t being suggested here at all.
It's an emotive topic and it's hard to cut through and find clarity.

Basic Human rights are non negotiable in their existence. Damm right that’s emotive
And what about the human rights of a vulnerable person one of these people gives the virus to that ends up killing them? Are those non-negotiable?
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:02 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
You are still allowed to go to public spaces and public venues.
The are declarations are quite detailed on what society means .

Using corporates to break these tenets is even more appalling than a government discussion and a full democracy at work.
Farva isn't specifically suggesting that... he's suggesting that simple market forces centred on the cost of entertaining anti vaxxers will create a natural limit to the type of exposure we regard as dangerous.

there's nothing undemocratic about allowing a business owner to protect their business, right?


As long as the business owner doesn’t breach someone’s rights doing it.


Vaccine passports are by their very nature discriminatory.

As you yourself said these are emotive and complex not knee jerk and arbitrary.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:59 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:54 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:45 am

Yes and no... we do impose detention on those who through their actions, threaten others either directly or through disobeying the rules we construct... the Law.

So there's an argument here that there's a precedent of sorts to do exactly that.


Agreed , prisons etc. However we’ve as society’s in the west taken this exceptionally seriously and written huge controls and limitations to protect even criminals rights.

That level of care isn’t being suggested here at all.
It's an emotive topic and it's hard to cut through and find clarity.

Basic Human rights are non negotiable in their existence. Damm right that’s emotive
And what about the human rights of a vulnerable person one of these people gives the virus to that ends up killing them? Are those non-negotiable?

They conflict . They’re welcome to stay home though right ?
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19387
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Farva »

I would fully expect an insurer to push up the premium to cover the risk of a transmission occurring in your premise. There would be risk of legal action against the premise and they would then need to demonstrate they have done everything possible to protect the customer. Without excluding people who are not vaccinated they will not be able to demonstrate that. I would be interested to see what the outcome of that legal action would be.
If a business is not able to take action to reduce that cost, then either they would need that liability removed from them (who do I sue if my elderly mother or grandmother catches Covid and die even if vaccinated?) or they are allowed to exclude people who are not vaccinated.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19387
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Farva »

And how is that different to buying a car. I can’t drive a car without a license. If I elect to not get a license I can’t drive a car.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:02 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
You are still allowed to go to public spaces and public venues.
The are declarations are quite detailed on what society means .

Using corporates to break these tenets is even more appalling than a government discussion and a full democracy at work.
Farva isn't specifically suggesting that... he's suggesting that simple market forces centred on the cost of entertaining anti vaxxers will create a natural limit to the type of exposure we regard as dangerous.

there's nothing undemocratic about allowing a business owner to protect their business, right?


As long as the business owner doesn’t breach someone’s rights doing it.


Vaccine passports are by their very nature discriminatory.

As you yourself said these are emotive and complex not knee jerk and arbitrary.
When I first left NZ and hit Australia, I only needed a passport. A visa was just an automatic issue. Something like 10 years or so before that, you didn't even need a passport.

I met and shared house with a Kiwi lady years later in Perth who had travelled extensively through the late 70s, from the UK overland through to Australia and NZ. Many of those countries at that time were practically open border with travel documents often not requested or needed.

Those arrangements have obviously changed over time as differing security needs impose themselves.

this is no different.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19387
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Farva »

I should add I do t think an extreme version should be pursued, but certainly for high risk activities such as flights, indoor concerts or the cinema should be considered.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:07 am I would fully expect an insurer to push up the premium to cover the risk of a transmission occurring in your premise. There would be risk of legal action against the premise and they would then need to demonstrate they have done everything possible to protect the customer. Without excluding people who are not vaccinated they will not be able to demonstrate that. I would be interested to see what the outcome of that legal action would be.
If a business is not able to take action to reduce that cost, then either they would need that liability removed from them (who do I sue if my elderly mother or grandmother catches Covid and die even if vaccinated?) or they are allowed to exclude people who are not vaccinated.

Since when have business owners ever been
Responsible for people contracting a disease
On their premises .?

Who would you sue if your elderly relative caught Flu and died ? It’s exactly the same.

As a society we decided to not place “blame”
At the most basic levels of health. You can make a better argument than “insurance” regarding that huge change in relations between the individuals, business and especially state than litigation?
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:07 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:59 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:54 am



Agreed , prisons etc. However we’ve as society’s in the west taken this exceptionally seriously and written huge controls and limitations to protect even criminals rights.

That level of care isn’t being suggested here at all.
It's an emotive topic and it's hard to cut through and find clarity.

Basic Human rights are non negotiable in their existence. Damm right that’s emotive
And what about the human rights of a vulnerable person one of these people gives the virus to that ends up killing them? Are those non-negotiable?

They conflict . They’re welcome to stay home though right ?
But then that impedes their right to participate in society. Why should they be forced to live an isolated existence while those who show no regard for our communities collective welfare be allowed free range?
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:10 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:02 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am
You are still allowed to go to public spaces and public venues.
The are declarations are quite detailed on what society means .

Using corporates to break these tenets is even more appalling than a government discussion and a full democracy at work.
Farva isn't specifically suggesting that... he's suggesting that simple market forces centred on the cost of entertaining anti vaxxers will create a natural limit to the type of exposure we regard as dangerous.

there's nothing undemocratic about allowing a business owner to protect their business, right?


As long as the business owner doesn’t breach someone’s rights doing it.


Vaccine passports are by their very nature discriminatory.

As you yourself said these are emotive and complex not knee jerk and arbitrary.
When I first left NZ and hit Australia, I only needed a passport. A visa was just an automatic issue. Something like 10 years or so before that, you didn't even need a passport.

I met and shared house with a Kiwi lady years later in Perth who had travelled extensively through the late 70s, from the UK overland through to Australia and NZ. Many of those countries at that time were practically open border with travel documents often not requested or needed.

Those arrangements have obviously changed over time as differing security needs impose themselves.

this is no different.


Basing rights in someone’s “health status” is rather different.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:12 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:07 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:59 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am

It's an emotive topic and it's hard to cut through and find clarity.

Basic Human rights are non negotiable in their existence. Damm right that’s emotive
And what about the human rights of a vulnerable person one of these people gives the virus to that ends up killing them? Are those non-negotiable?

They conflict . They’re welcome to stay home though right ?
But then that impedes their right to participate in society. Why should they be forced to live an isolated existence while those who show no regard for our communities collective welfare be allowed free range?

They’re not being “forced” though right ?
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 35177
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Ali's Choice »

Vaccine passports are a great idea if you are middle class person. They are less great if you are an Aboriginal person from Mt Isa who doesn't speak English and lives in a dry river bed with no fixed address.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

“The collective “

As good a reason to why these passports are a terrible idea .
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by guy smiley »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:15 am Basing rights in someone’s “health status” is rather different.
Sure... it's different. This is an unprecedented event and we're having to find new ways to deal with it.
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:15 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:10 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:02 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:57 am

The are declarations are quite detailed on what society means .

Using corporates to break these tenets is even more appalling than a government discussion and a full democracy at work.
Farva isn't specifically suggesting that... he's suggesting that simple market forces centred on the cost of entertaining anti vaxxers will create a natural limit to the type of exposure we regard as dangerous.

there's nothing undemocratic about allowing a business owner to protect their business, right?


As long as the business owner doesn’t breach someone’s rights doing it.


Vaccine passports are by their very nature discriminatory.

As you yourself said these are emotive and complex not knee jerk and arbitrary.
When I first left NZ and hit Australia, I only needed a passport. A visa was just an automatic issue. Something like 10 years or so before that, you didn't even need a passport.

I met and shared house with a Kiwi lady years later in Perth who had travelled extensively through the late 70s, from the UK overland through to Australia and NZ. Many of those countries at that time were practically open border with travel documents often not requested or needed.

Those arrangements have obviously changed over time as differing security needs impose themselves.

this is no different.


Basing rights in someone’s “health status” is rather different.
You're literally advocating similar in regards to vulnerable people. To essentially become prisoners in their own homes not because they chose not to vaccinate but because they either medically couldn't or possess significant risk factors.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:18 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:15 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:10 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:02 am

Farva isn't specifically suggesting that... he's suggesting that simple market forces centred on the cost of entertaining anti vaxxers will create a natural limit to the type of exposure we regard as dangerous.

there's nothing undemocratic about allowing a business owner to protect their business, right?


As long as the business owner doesn’t breach someone’s rights doing it.


Vaccine passports are by their very nature discriminatory.

As you yourself said these are emotive and complex not knee jerk and arbitrary.
When I first left NZ and hit Australia, I only needed a passport. A visa was just an automatic issue. Something like 10 years or so before that, you didn't even need a passport.

I met and shared house with a Kiwi lady years later in Perth who had travelled extensively through the late 70s, from the UK overland through to Australia and NZ. Many of those countries at that time were practically open border with travel documents often not requested or needed.

Those arrangements have obviously changed over time as differing security needs impose themselves.

this is no different.


Basing rights in someone’s “health status” is rather different.
You're literally advocating similar in regards to vulnerable people. To essentially become prisoners in their own homes not because they chose not to vaccinate but because they either medically couldn't or possess significant risk factors.

But you’re a supporter of discrimination, I’m just
Choosing a different group to pick on.
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:15 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:12 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:07 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:59 am


Basic Human rights are non negotiable in their existence. Damm right that’s emotive
And what about the human rights of a vulnerable person one of these people gives the virus to that ends up killing them? Are those non-negotiable?

They conflict . They’re welcome to stay home though right ?
But then that impedes their right to participate in society. Why should they be forced to live an isolated existence while those who show no regard for our communities collective welfare be allowed free range?

They’re not being “forced” though right ?
And neither are anti-vaxxers. They are choosing not to vaccinate in direct opposition to the collective wellbeing of the community in which they belong. The difference being those who are vulnerable because they cannot vaccinate or are of higher risk don't have the choice.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19387
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Farva »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:12 am
Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:07 am I would fully expect an insurer to push up the premium to cover the risk of a transmission occurring in your premise. There would be risk of legal action against the premise and they would then need to demonstrate they have done everything possible to protect the customer. Without excluding people who are not vaccinated they will not be able to demonstrate that. I would be interested to see what the outcome of that legal action would be.
If a business is not able to take action to reduce that cost, then either they would need that liability removed from them (who do I sue if my elderly mother or grandmother catches Covid and die even if vaccinated?) or they are allowed to exclude people who are not vaccinated.

Since when have business owners ever been
Responsible for people contracting a disease
On their premises .?

Who would you sue if your elderly relative caught Flu and died ? It’s exactly the same.

As a society we decided to not place “blame”
At the most basic levels of health. You can make a better argument than “insurance” regarding that huge change in relations between the individuals, business and especially state than litigation?
When have we ever had a global pandemic in a time when the legal system is similar to what it is now.
User avatar
Working Class Rugger
Posts: 4244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA plum!!!

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Working Class Rugger »

bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:19 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:18 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:15 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:10 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:05 am



As long as the business owner doesn’t breach someone’s rights doing it.


Vaccine passports are by their very nature discriminatory.

As you yourself said these are emotive and complex not knee jerk and arbitrary.
When I first left NZ and hit Australia, I only needed a passport. A visa was just an automatic issue. Something like 10 years or so before that, you didn't even need a passport.

I met and shared house with a Kiwi lady years later in Perth who had travelled extensively through the late 70s, from the UK overland through to Australia and NZ. Many of those countries at that time were practically open border with travel documents often not requested or needed.

Those arrangements have obviously changed over time as differing security needs impose themselves.

this is no different.


Basing rights in someone’s “health status” is rather different.
You're literally advocating similar in regards to vulnerable people. To essentially become prisoners in their own homes not because they chose not to vaccinate but because they either medically couldn't or possess significant risk factors.

But you’re a supporter of discrimination, I’m just
Choosing a different group to pick on.
Which by your reasoning makes you a supporter of discrimination. In fact, I'd argue it makes you worse as I believe in providing consequences to choices made by otherwise healthy individuals while you're prioritising those with the choice above those who don't. Unless you consider isolation or death choices.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:22 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:12 am
Farva wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:07 am I would fully expect an insurer to push up the premium to cover the risk of a transmission occurring in your premise. There would be risk of legal action against the premise and they would then need to demonstrate they have done everything possible to protect the customer. Without excluding people who are not vaccinated they will not be able to demonstrate that. I would be interested to see what the outcome of that legal action would be.
If a business is not able to take action to reduce that cost, then either they would need that liability removed from them (who do I sue if my elderly mother or grandmother catches Covid and die even if vaccinated?) or they are allowed to exclude people who are not vaccinated.

Since when have business owners ever been
Responsible for people contracting a disease
On their premises .?

Who would you sue if your elderly relative caught Flu and died ? It’s exactly the same.

As a society we decided to not place “blame”
At the most basic levels of health. You can make a better argument than “insurance” regarding that huge change in relations between the individuals, business and especially state than litigation?
When have we ever had a global pandemic in a time when the legal system is similar to what it is now.
1968.
bimboman
Posts: 75546
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by bimboman »

Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:24 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:19 am
Working Class Rugger wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:18 am
bimboman wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:15 am
guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:10 am

When I first left NZ and hit Australia, I only needed a passport. A visa was just an automatic issue. Something like 10 years or so before that, you didn't even need a passport.

I met and shared house with a Kiwi lady years later in Perth who had travelled extensively through the late 70s, from the UK overland through to Australia and NZ. Many of those countries at that time were practically open border with travel documents often not requested or needed.

Those arrangements have obviously changed over time as differing security needs impose themselves.

this is no different.


Basing rights in someone’s “health status” is rather different.
You're literally advocating similar in regards to vulnerable people. To essentially become prisoners in their own homes not because they chose not to vaccinate but because they either medically couldn't or possess significant risk factors.

But you’re a supporter of discrimination, I’m just
Choosing a different group to pick on.
Which by your reasoning makes you a supporter of discrimination. In fact, I'd argue it makes you worse as I believe in providing consequences to choices made by otherwise healthy individuals while you're prioritising those with the choice above those who don't. Unless you consider isolation or death choices.
I’m using it as a rhetorical argument to expose the fact you’re happy to dismiss someone’s basic rights very easily.

Justifying how bad someone else’s discrimination is doesn’t forgive your own.
User avatar
Harveys
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: Sydney.... fvcked

Post by Harveys »

guy smiley wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:05 am You're running into some very dodgy legal and moral ground with all of these suggestions.

Very, very dodgy.
I agree, focus on incentives to get people to volunteer but avoid penalties for those who opt out.

It’s also iffy offering cash incentives to essentially bribe lower socio economic participation.

Most importantly get the messaging f**king sorted.
Post Reply