Covid in Australia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
306

I just found this site regarding NSW legislation and COVID:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/covid19/legislation/nsw

Currently having a cursory glance at this article:

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/act-2020-1

Seems to me like there a lack of checks and balances in this place. What is to stop the government from continuously expanding the scope of their powers?

So now I need to find out what are the criteria for enacting emergency power?

I concur.

I’ve noticed most people here love abiding by the rules. Anything they are told to do. Ahh nope can’t do that mate cause of lockdown. An absence of critical thinking.

I don’t know whats right. But questioning the handling of the situation and suggesting that perhaps this is overboard and unnecessary makes me the moron.

2 Likes
307

Well I am only interested now because these lockdown restrictions keep progressing and as you’ve mentioned incredibly complicit populace.

Had me wondering is this even legal and at what point will people have enough.

I said to my peer. If BEar Jick Lee Ahn mandated that you can no longer go to grocery store or pharmacy but must utilize a service that will transport orders to your home that you put in online would people tolerate that?

I honestly think here they would.

308

Interestingly Victorian premier is trying to make the Victorian state of disaster permanent… Probably so he can foot through as many autocratic bills as humanely possible absent of invoking scrutiny.

1 Like
309

Aussies love being told what to do as to avoid having to independently act. We are EXTREMELY dependent on the government, we want them to fix everything for us…

Now whenever a new rule/regulation is brought into power the population is instaneously brought to their knees by an orgasm of cataclysmic proportions!

“Instead of a 5km radius, we will downgrade to 2._lm radius because our state is TOUGHER! we will win THIS WAR!”

“Population looks up from their televisions in a daze, a sense of absolutely ecstacy dawns over them.”

310

Usually the broader government limits the time and can take the emergency powers away.

1 Like
311

Yup. There has to be a specified expiration date for such powers when invoked.

312

I normally try to look at the simplest explanations for any acts of governments because I don’t really credit them with much foresight.

I think it’s because Aussies don’t want to get vaccinated. It’s probably this simple.

There’s a balancing act here. The government doesn’t want to take the blame if cases surge, and this will happen if measures are relaxed because Delta is currently the dominant strain. They can’t stop mass testing and counting cases because without vaccinations, there won’t be as many mild to asymptomatic ones to add to the case count as countries with higher vaccination rates so the percentage of deaths will be disproportionately high. This is because their contact tracing efforts would break down if they can’t control the movement of the population.

They don’t want to mandate compulsory vaccinations either because they don’t want to take on liability for any adverse events.

I think what they’re doing is making life as miserable for people as possible within the confines of the law so they voluntarily get vaccinated. When the vaccination rate gets high enough, they’ll have released enough data on the percentage of deaths relative to the infected to call Covid “endemic” without the public backlash. That’s when they can relax measures and stop counting cases.

1 Like
313

Only 11% in new polls state they’ll never get vaccinated

It’s possible. Thought I’d wager the logical explanation is

every few months the state government has to extend state of emergency/state of disaster declarations

Each time, the extension has to bypass parliament… When a state of emergency/disaster isn’t in place, pandemic legislature has to be footed through parliament; meaning it can be difficult and impractical to suddenly snap borders shut, impose draconian lockdowns etc.

The state of disaster also gives the police more power, and enables the government to pass biosecurity legislature they’d otherwise not be able to implement due to ethical concerns.

Permanent state of disaster declaration = excess police powers, lockdown powers etc can always be imposed without pushback/input from the federal government

I think it’s a power grab. Not at all surprised, the Andrews government has been shrouded in secrecy for years now. Freedom of information requests are continually denied. I’m sure there’s a reason for said power grab, it just hasn’t and won’t be disclosed to the public.

As of recent quite a few people (names classified/undisclosed) who held quite a bit of power in the Andrews government resigned. It’s hypothesised many believe either this term or 2022 will be Andrews last term as premier, thus they might be resigning to look for work in private sectors as to never be associated with the downfall of the Victorian government when looking for new employment.

To note, other premier’s aren’t much better. Over the past eight years state and federal governments around here have become more and more secretive, disclosing agendas to only the most tight knit groups within office. Simultaneously privacy laws for citizens have been weakening, mass surveillance bills are getting footed through parliament without media coverage or public outcry. Freedom of information requests are constantly denied pertaining to declassifying information that should otherwise be available to the public.

Media outlets here tend to be owned directly or indirectly by Rupert Murdoch (fairly far right), if it isn’t; chances are it has a fairly leftist political slant. There is very little in the way of a middle ground as to where one can acquire unbiased information from. Both the far right and the far left over here don’t exactly mind mass surveillance and the likes.

The Andrews government now has a very small group of tightly knit politicians who hold quite a bit of power, granted lobbying from law enforcement also has a HUGE impact on political agenda here. Tough on crime is very, very popular, yet very stupid when we refer to crimes like cannabis possession of which Victoria alone spends over 1 billion dollars policing per year.

Let’s talk about the police here too. Police ought to prioritise protecting the community, not raising revenue by lowering “speeding camera” quotas as much as possible, hiding record amounts every year, imposing absurd fines for those who test positive to trace residue of narcotics in their saliva (at record numbers each year), imposing public strip search quotas, developing heat seeking, infrared cannabis plant detectors attached to helicopters and the likes. Do you not have something better to do?

Go bust a Bikie gang involved with arms trafficking or something. Imagine a 300$+ fine for going 1.5mph over the speed limit… Whenever policy alteration is touted that involved going against the grain of policy in place that’d otherwise reduce revenue accrual the police here huff and puff, they’ve said “we will arrest you anyway!” (ACT cannabis decriminalisation), they’ve said “but the streets will turn red with blood” etc.

Hell, the police even threw a tantrum when courts in Vic tried to mandate police had to hand in body can footage ONLY when courts were presented with cases revolving around police brutality. Apparently that’s unacceptable, the verdict was “police don’t have to do this, as a matter of fact; we can turn off body cams whenever we want”.

Sure, more police shootings happen in the USA; There’s also way more gun violence in the US. But for those who complain about police conduct in the US… Come here, seriously. In the US police misconduct can be taken to court, here police can stomp on a disabled man’s head for seemingly no reason until he’s been put in a coma. Footage will be available of the entire event and they’ll be let off, with state premiers defending the situation “this was acceptable conduct given the situation involved”… And that’s it…

The incredibly obedient public says nothing, we move on… It happens again…

314

Yes. So many videos of people telling USA LEO to fuck off and just displaying complete disrespect to the officers.

I’ve learned enough since I’ve been here to know better than to ever consider testing my luck like that with an officer here.

315

It’s starting bois… those on other forums are very keen to call me a fuckwit that needs to get the fuck out of Australia because no one wants me here… because I’m explaining just how problematic this is.

Chances are the federal government pulls all funding for job keeper/economic stimulus, WA shuts off, citizens grow jealous over other states new found freedoms and Mark has to abolish this policy less he wishes to be voted out. That… OR somehow they’re conditioned to believe the outside world is too dangerous of a place to navagate, that Mark McCunt is the saviour. As they all collectively join together in a big sheepish heap the federal government will want a page out of his handbook as to how he’s managed to create a population so complicit and obedient and they’ll go down that route.

The latter seems unlikely, though I do believe premiers and law enforcement alike will be unwilling to easily give up their newfound autocratic powers

@oglebee @Beyond_Beyond

1 Like
316

Victoria has one person in ICU… in the entire state. There isn’t enough compliance with health orders because people are sick of your autocratic nonsense you pathetic, narrow minded cunt; Happy as a pig in shit whilst you rake in an enormous salary meanwhile you’re shutting down businesses and forcing people out of a job.

30+ trips to China since you’ve come into power, signed up Victoria to the belt and road initiative… I hate Donald Trump but… “Make Victoria free of Daniel Andrews again!”

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/coronavirus/melburnians-warned-lockdown-could-last-months/news-story/44175ec4235aa20ee434d68dcd0d1c4f

At what cost? How can you justify breaking the global record for “most days spent in lockdown”? Over a case/death count lower than virtually the rest of the developed world?

We are due to be 70% vaccinated within two months at this pace. What “crisis” situation is NSW in? You’re literally creating the crisis with draconian lockdowns, military deployment, police roaming the streets etc.

Daniel Andrews has now said NSW will be locked out to Vic if they still have significant communicable transmission by the time they reach 80%… The new narrative of the national plan to open Aus being in jeopardy has begun

317

“Mark McCunt”

You,Sir are a poet!

1 Like
318

Thank you… I try

I actually have my own profane names for most of the premier’s in Aus. I find most equally pathetic

Vote liberal democrats! The Conservative, libertarian minded party that might very be the only one that seems to give a damn about human rights and civil liberties around here

Their policy is/was to remove all covid restrictions over here by November! That’s also the theoretical policy within the roadmap to opening up were we to reach 80% vaccinated

I’ll put down five dogecoins the goalposts will be shifted by then

NSW looks to reach 80% partially vaccinated by next month… If that doesn’t drive down case numbers + a draconian stage 4 indefinate lockdown, nothing will

At which point it seriously looks like the plan outside of NSW will be “lock out NSW forever”.

I imagine NSW ironically being open, living with covid whereas the rest of Aus succumbs to becoming a hermit nation.

1 Like
319

So… Curfews for Victoria, playgrounds closed… Over 20 cases and an engagement party

That’s just cruel. Once again the public is showering Daniel Andrews with approval.

I’m at a loss for words. The curfews serve as a punitive measure, a “fuck you” of sorts as there is not a shred of epidemiological evidence to suggest they’re effective.

This “tougher restrictions” mentality aligns with the Aussie “tough on crime” mentality. If it doesn’t work, increasingly punitive measures will!

The population over here has a little orgasm every time they hear “fines, imprisonment, don’t bReAk ThE rUlEs” because we love feeling morally superior.

I can’t stand this ridiculously paternalistic approach, the way he speaks down from his ivory tower during those daily Press conferences. 18000 police patrolling Sydney + 800 ADF personell… Over what? 400 cases per day

The media narrative make it sound like this is a post apocalyptic scenario, the streets are running red with blood!

Seriously? Most countries would KILL to have only 1-5 deaths per day

1 Like
320

*That’s just safe.

I’m pretty sure you can find studies saying COVID works the night shift.

(/s)

Question: At what point did it become ridiculous?

How many excess deaths are acceptable?

321

I stopped supporting it towards the end of the second long lockdown. The lockdowns were supposed to be brief interventions so we could buff up ICU capacity, safeguard businesses/create methodology to mitigate spread in workplaces and live out some semblance of a “Covid normal” reality.

The second lockdown went on for… Around twenty weeks, towards the last month I said “what the fuck!”… Then, we actually had covid normal. Everything was kind of normal, except QR codes and mask mandates were omnipresent. Vaccines came around and I thought “finally, this has come to an end”…

No… I was wrong, politicians can say whatever they want and the public tends to forget a few months later. Lockdowns have now become the primary tool we only use to deal with covid. It’s a “sledgehammer” approach used to hammer in a nail. If a lockdown doesn’t drive case load down to zero, impose more and more punitive restrictions, declare martial law, use the military… you name it.

It appears there is no end. My answer being, it became ridiculous the second we shifted from “suppression” to “elimination”. When media censorship, arresting and imprisoning protestors and the likes became acceptable to the public. It became ridiculous when the restrictions were no longer about public safety, but about punishing those who dare go against the grain of what the government wants.

Relative to the few thousand excess deaths there has been this year related to lockdowns?

I think it’s a difficult trade off, and people are amenable to having their own opinions. I’m willing to trade safety for freedom, because historically, and from seeing what’s going down here it appears freedoms are easy to give up, but very difficult to get back.

I’d be willing to accept say… 10-20K deaths per year so long as (yes, it’s inhumane if I say the but I’ll say it anyway… the majority are aged 80+; if it meant open borders, no more lockdowns, no more economic strain.

Chances are we will be looking down the barrel of 1-2k deaths/yr post 80%. The vast majority of deaths will be within unvaccinated cohorts or within fully vaccinated elderly individuals.

322

You wanna stop all activities that cause deaths? We ain’t going to be doing much.

323

Lock the world down…let’s see what happens

I guarantee there will still be deaths

324

I had a look at the Doherty modelling to see how many deaths Australia is theoretically willing to tolerate. It looks like they’re okay with around 2-3,500 deaths/year… Around 500,000-1,000,000 cases/year. They’re hoping for far less… Like under 100 deaths, but such an expectation is absolutely laughable

Do I think they’ll hit that quota? No, the modelling doesn’t take into account those below the age of sixteen. Nor does it take into account we open up past covid zero. Granted if the case load is low (say under 50 cases/day) the result would probably be equitable.

I’m thinking it’ll be closer to 1 mil cases/year, quite a few deaths amongst the elderly less we start up with booster shots/acquire new variant specific vaccines when they come out.

325

That’s true. The surest way to stop deaths is to stop living. I’d say all of this went too far the second any mandates of any sort were allowed. Mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccine shit, all of it.