You know that something is pretty much a done deal when news reports announce it, and then add: “But there is concern that…” There is concern that abolishing taxes on the rich/killing all the bees/annexing the Sudatenland may etc etc etc.
Thus it is with vaccine certificates, workplace compulsion, passports, the whole deal. They were vaguely talked about for a while. Now suddenly, all at once, they’re here, and as pretty much a done deal. The “concern that” routine is pretty much a fig leaf to cover the conversion of our ostensibly democratic system into an openly administrative one.
With parliaments having been through periods of suspension, and all-encompassing rule by regulation laws rolled out, the way has been prepared for a sweeping transformation of life, without much debate at all.
Perhaps there wouldn’t be much actual debate, even if such could be had. The Morrison government is not about to interrupt any process that might get it out of the monumental disaster zone as quickly as possible. The NSW and Victorian governments have to contend with both their own stuff-ups and being blamed for the feds’ huge failure on orderly vaccine rollout.
So there is no great pressure to have a full and frank discussion about bodily rights, sweeping laws and obligations, etc. And no opposition appears willing to become the awkward squad yet, though the wacky pirate ship of fools Matthew Guy now heads in Spring Street may give it a go.
But nor is there any great pressure coming from the Australian public. Although up to 20% of people appear to be anti-COVID-vax, the resistance is disorganised, a set of overlapping obsessions rather than a movement with a solid and well-formed ideological core. Although their numbers are significant, they have been simultaneously self-marginalising.
This would appear to be very much an Australian thing, for better and worse. Look one way and there’s the United Kingdom having some sort of debate about rights and freedoms, however cynical and actively lethal its government may have been. But look right and there’s the United States, where whole Republican state governments have actively sought to undermine both lockdowns and vaccination — and now have overflowing ERs as a result (at last, the “death panels” they always wanted!). Then there’s us, pretty eager to get on with it.
The situation shows our distinctive political nature. We are a statist society, whose willing consent to be not merely organised by the state but defined by it is substantial. What has obscured that statism has been the introduction of market individualism into every corner of life in the past 30 years. But note, that didn’t come with any great push for more constitutionally enshrined rights. Indeed, many on the right banging on about Dictator Dan opposed any sort of bill of rights that would have made Victoria’s sweeping lockdowns impossible. Nope, beyond all this kitsch about “dobbing in” etc, we not only consent to be ruled, that consent is an expression of our culture.
We have, or once had, firm views on the program governments should undertake, and that was how we expressed our public will. And it’s in that spirit that a more cautious, political and reflexive approach to vaccine compulsion should occur. And should be led by progressives and the left. Those bemoaning the resistance of crazies should remember that it’s not nothing to authorise the state to tell people what to do with the interior of their bodies, and doing so has consequences. The right to abortion is underpinned by that boundary — and especially the right to abortion on demand, the removal of the state from any adjudication of what counts as a “legitimate” reason.
But there are others in the pipeline, so to speak. The use of complex psychotropic drugs, smart drugs, neural implants are here. Will employers, for example, be able to demand the use of such in the future? Will policing regimes — such as the “pre-crime” policing of domestic violence being trialled in Queensland — be followed by court-ordered medication of those who have not actually been “mental health”-sectioned?
You can be pretty sure bosses and governments will try all these and vaccine mandate regimes will be the precedent. Nevertheless that does not, of itself, invalidate the use of such restrictions. But it does demand that we think about how the particular forms of it fit together — i.e. whether it is administered by the state, or by private bodies.
The libertarian/classical liberal answer is, I presume, simple in some regards. Private owners have a right to who comes on to their property and who doesn’t. You can’t come in wearing those shoes, and without a vaccine passport. But those property rights have been limited by law repeatedly on grounds of race, gender etc, so on which side of that line does vaccination fall? And to what services does it apply? You can throw a drunk or someone in a swastika T-shirt out of your pharmacy, but it’s quite possible you shouldn’t be able to refuse service to the unvaccinated.
If this is left to private providers to determine, will we end up with some sort of nightmare patchwork of rules which make social life and organisation impossible? Or chaotic, with vax-only and anti-vax services opening? Irritating, dysfunctional chaos, the libertarian utopia.
No, this seems a situation where positive freedom is maximised and the attacks on negative freedom minimised by the state taking a comprehensive but reflexive role, and trying to develop the simplest, clearest most rational regime of both vax compulsion and non-vax exclusion, so that what we end up with is the simplest possible “state object” — i.e. a set of laws and regulations — capable of being comprehended as a whole, for future debate and modification.
That might mean, for example, that domestic flights require vaccine proof, or a very recent negative test, but that trains and buses do not — simply on the principle that flights have checking regimes that involve a surrender of freedom, while surface transport does not. Cinemas and large venues could be authorised to demand it, cafes and pubs not.
That sort of process would also create a patchwork of regulations, but the patches would be larger, the pattern simpler. The alternative — which one is not unattracted to — is to go strongly the other way, and have a strong, actively enforced vaccine mandate, pretty much requiring people to get vaccinated by this date or that, depending on first letter of surname.
Enforcing the idea of mutual obligation while clarifying non-impactful bodily rights (abortion, meds refusal, etc). All these things need to be debated. We have barely begun. Coming through all this will wholly change our ideas about what freedom and society are. “There are concerns that… ?” There are nothing but concerns at this stage.
There a number of well made and thought provoking points in this article. I agree that bodily sovereignty is a profoundly important right to be protected. I agree also that if we are to have vaccine mandates these should be imposed at a national level by government and not left to the inclinations of private sector actors. However, there is also the question of conflicting freedoms, that is, your freedom to refuse vaccination is not your license to endanger my health. This is not new. For example, I am free to drink a slab of beer and two glasses of sherry in a single sitting, however I am not then licensed to drive my car on the public roadway when thus intoxicated. As others have pointed out, the vaccine passport for travel is a matter of recent memory for many of us. Public safety is generally regarded as a government responsibility, and surely this is a matter of public safety.
I was recently sent a petition. Parents were protesting having to vaccinate primary school aged children. I said, ” what about the legal obligation of the school to provide a safe work environment for teachers, some of whom may be immuno-compromised? ”
Basically, everywhere is someone’s workplace. So the safety bureaucracy wins again. No jab, no interacting with people working. It’s already law.
The ‘vaccinated’ are equally capable of becoming infectious and transmitting the virus as the ‘unvaccinated’. This fact is now acknowledged by the scientific community and referred to as ‘breakthrough infections’ While the ‘vaccine’ prevents serious symptoms and death, it does not prevent transmissibility and thus renders the idea of a ‘vaccination passport’, well, sort of redundant….
Apparently the use of my ‘vaccine passport’ to enter the cinema/pub/sporting event will be accepted without question, while at the very same time, I may be highly infectious.
The ‘passport’ does not, and cannot, prevent you from contracting or transmitting, the latest COVID-19 variant.
I’m guessing whoever downvoted your comment took issue with the word “equally”. Do you have a citation for that?
I can cite several studies that confirm this, and you, in turn can presumably cite several studies that refute it. This is how science should, and has until recently, always worked – unless of course your adhere to The Science™️, which views only one hypothesis as acceptable and beyond refutability. But trading ‘citations’ is really not the point of my comment.
If you acknowledge that the vaccinated are capable of breakthrough infections, and thus transmitting the infection, at whatever the level (as even Fauci has done) then the entire concept of a ‘Vaccination Passport’ becomes rather pointless, doesn’t it?
Debates about ‘quantity’ do not alter the main tenet of my comment.
Debates about quantity do undermine the main tenet of your argument. To say that only vaccinated people are allowed to enter places where gatherings occur excludes the unvaccinated but does not thereby say that all vaccinated people should be allowed to enter a place where gatherings occur. No doubt the possibility of reduced likelihood of transmission from many fewer people might require that people take, for a time, rapid antigen tests to show that a person who is vaccinated is also highly unlikely to be infected, at least in places where infections could easily be passed on. After time passes, when ventilation systems are improved, it might suffice that people are vaccinated, if the number of infections are low. Guy’s rather rambling assimilation of vaccine mandates to compelling people who are adults to be vaccinated just confuses things. Children may be forced to have vaccines, with parental permission, but adults cannot, just as an adult person generally cannot be forced to refrain from drinking, except in a specific location where providers of drinks have an obligation not to serve people who are clearly inebriated. What unvaccinated adults can be forced to do is not go to places where they can infect others, just as police may deprive a drunken driver of their car keys, in order to protect others on the road from risks that they should not have to endure.
That’s not how it works. I don’t have to do cite anything because I’m not making a claim.
Except you did make a claim.
Here’s a hint “equally”
In the absence of evidence for that claim, your logic is flawed
This is not a claim? “The ‘vaccinated’ are equally capable of becoming infectious and transmitting the virus as the ‘unvaccinated’.”
And it’s also complete rubbish. And what do you mean by “equally capable of becoming infectious“? Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected by the virus and they’re less likely to be infectious if they do become infected and the level of infectiousness is likely to be lower.
Talking to a brick wall Captain – – sheeple are like that.
Paul Griffin – Dir.of Infectious Diseases at Mater Health Services, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine at Uni.of Qld,
‘It can be confusing when the number of people vaccinated goes up, the number of cases in people fully vaccinated will also go up. People who are fully vaccinated in some countries are are also a little more likely to get infected…than their unvaccinated counterparts.
An important paradox to understand is that while it remains clear that fully vaccinated individuals are less likely to catch the infection, once the proportion of vaccinated people in a population goes up then it is likely that more cases will occur in vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated.’
Prof. Ian Marschner – Professor of Biostatistics from the Uni.of Sydney’s NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre
’Countries with high vaccination rates, such as Israel, will logically have more infection among vaccinated people…This does not mean that the vaccine is not working’
Dr. Roger Lord – Senior Lecturer (Medical Services) with the Faculty of Health Sciences at the ACU and Visiting Research Fellow with The Prince Charles Hospital (Brisbane)
’It is not surprising that in countries where higher vaccination rates exist that more vaccinated than unvaccinated individuals have contracted COVID-19. This is certainly the case in the United Kingdom where vaccination rates have been high.’
Nikolai Petrovsky – Professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University.
’The concept of a vaccine passport is that people who have been vaccinated are safe to others and should be able to move around more freely, travel between countries and not have to quarantine or wear masks. There is no scientific basis for this as it presumes that the current vaccines completely block infection and transmission which we know they do not.
The same goes for mandatory vaccination of nursing home staff and quarantine workers – while this might reduce their own risk of serious illness, it provides no assurance that they won’t still transmit infection to those they are caring for, which is the implicit reason for mandating the vaccination. Indeed by increasing the rate of asymptotic infection, this may paradoxically increase rather than decrease the risk of the virus being transmitted into aged care facilities by asymptomatic carriers. It should not be surprising that the public gets confused when such scientifically ungrounded policies are introduced purely for political purposes or because members of our government are themselves totally confused as to the science underlying such vaccines.
The above mentioned citations are quoted in Scimex, an online news portal that produces world-wide content from Universities, research institutions, scientific journals and scientific conferences.
It is well established that you are incorrect.
Indeed. However, infection rates amongst unvaccinated persons are about ~5x higher.
Indeed. However, if implemented competently they will reduce your opportunities for each.
I don’t particularly favour vaccine passports save for international travel, and I’d hate to seem them implemented without a workable medical exemption system, however they’re both carrot and a stick for that proportion of society that is too stupid to know they’re stupid.
Yep ..carrots n sticks work well with donkeys & rabbits…
“The ‘seatbelt’ does not, and cannot, prevent you from receiving a serious injury from a motor vehicle accident.”
Stupid analolgy – seatbelts are not infallible BUT they sure do prevent a lot of serious injuries.
Q.E.D.
“argumentum ad ignorantiam“
James1 well done on completely missing my point.
Covid vaccine is not infallible BUT it sure does prevent a lot of infection and disease.
Obviously wrong – do some research. Multiple studies in nations with high rates of vaccination, including a recent study from Israel, prove that there is no such thing as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” In fact, 60% of infection cases in Israel are actually fully vaccinated people. Furthermore, Israel has found that vaccinated people are13-27 times more likely to get infected than people with natural immunity, and they are 8 times more likely to end up in ICU.
These findings reinforce data released a month ago out of Massachusetts, where 5100 covid infections were fully vaccinated people and 80 of them died. In other words, the vaccines don’t work so great, especially when compared to natural immunity.
BINGO! or Housey-housey, as my sainted aunts would have said!
My Return of James1 card is now complete – to whit & to weee…
“…wrong – do some research…”.
Where is my door prize?
Spot on – but business and the Coalition don’t want that uncomfortable fact widely known, and the absurd notion of a vaccine passport I believe is more to do with an enticement for those who are vaccine hesitant.
The Royal Australian College of GPs newsletter, NewsGP, has an article on this:
Associate Professor Paul Griffin, an infectious diseases physician at the University of Queensland, makes the point that as more people are vaccinated, the number of cases within that vaccinated population will also rise.
‘Unless a vaccine prevents transmission 100% of the time – which is essentially not possible, the polio vaccine perhaps comes the closest – then it remains possible for vaccinated individuals to still get infected,’ he said.
‘An important paradox to understand is that while it remains clear that fully vaccinated individuals are less likely to catch the infection, once the proportion of vaccinated people in a population goes up then it is likely that more cases will occur in vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated.
‘The rate of infection in those that are vaccinated will remain lower than in those that aren’t but because there are so many more people who are vaccinated, that even a lower rate will end up with higher numbers in this group than those that are not vaccinated.’
Associate Professor Griffin also notes that in other parts of the world, the greater freedoms given to vaccinated people may be influencing the infection rate.
‘People who are fully vaccinated in some countries are also a little more likely to get infected as they are very rightly allowed more freedoms than their unvaccinated counterparts,’ he said.
‘They also may have a reduction in their perceived risk and may then be less likely therefore to use other strategies to protect themselves such as social distancing, hand hygiene and wear masks for example.’
Professor Booy says that, as well as personal protection, vaccination helps contribute towards herd immunity.
‘People who get infected tend to have much lower viral load and of course don’t get severe disease,’ he said. ‘And because they have lower viral load in their throat, they cough and breathe out the virus less often – there’s less virus in your throat to expel.’
The exact level of the viral load caused by the Delta strain among the fully vaccinated is still unclear.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/why-are-fully-vaccinated-people-increasingly-being
.
I agree with with where you ended up in this article, Guy, and a community which actively mandates its state to regulate for the public good is an ideal. I don’t think, though, that we should have any truck with the slippery slope arguments which you used to make people think about the implications of state-mandated bans on the unvaccinated. Inroducing driving licences did not lead to licences to use the footpath and vaccination has been around longer the Australian (settler) nation without leading to the mandating of mind0cintrol drugs.
Well yes you make good points… except it’s hard to dignify vaccine resistance with any respect, as it’s not based on *anything* rational. As far as I can see it’s just a bunch of adult-babies having a big selfish tantrum over being asked to do something for the common good.
Agree. There are important arguments about democracy versus administration, positive versus negative rights and looming surveillance and other de-humanising technology operating in an increasingly unequal society. But this may not be the issue for those arguments. I think anti-Vax hardcore is about 2% not 20%, rest is AZ scared, woo woo gullible, open up don’t tread on me petit-bourgeois, and the usual right wing nuts looking for movements, or even sentiments, to colonise. Let’s just get on with it, get to 90%+ vaccinated like the good compliant statists we are and let the virus sort the rest out.
I’m curious about where the 20% statistic comes from, seeing as 80% of NSW got their first dose quite swiftly. Seems unlikely that 100% of the remainder are anti-vax ears…
*ahem* vaxxers
he he he anti vax ears!
The 80% is Media BS to make the sheeple believe everone wants a Jab.
Ask yourself, how would your pinup gal Catherine Bennett whose SaxInstitute receives its core funding from the NSW Ministry of Health, whom you championed in one of her articles, react to that!
I’m immediately related to one. I quote: “I’m not anti-vax. I don’t like Dictator Dan. If the government tells me not to get it I’ll go and get it.”
Neighbour with exactly same belief! Mention Dan and a tirade ensues.
Yes a guy I know 78, men’s shed dweller who was Labor is now all over Dan repeating the media and the National Party men’s shed drivel. It works, as Goebbels knew very well.
Anaphylactic reaction to a previous, different vaccine makes one hesitant.
If that qualified for an exemption, sweet. But it usually does not, and I’ve not seen anything from the mandating govts that clarifies this.
That’s what the fifteen-minute observation period after vaccination is for. If anaphylaxis is going to kick in, it’ll happen while you’re still within reach of immediate care.
I’m no expert, but I believe that vaccines are often based on different substrate stuff, so a reaction to one doesn’t necessarily mean a reaction to a different one.
There’s a lot of weighing up of risks involved in everyday life. Unfortunately humans aren’t especially good at that.
“There’s a lot of weighing up of risks involved in everyday life. Unfortunately humans aren’t especially good at that.”
How very true – – those relying on the Govt mandated information are certainly at risk ! All viewpoints should be out there & available BUT why are known World experts being silenced? That’s the question.
Oh yeah, like those ludicrous links you insist on insulting us with that take one to conspiracy theory Craig Kelly rabbit hole land down which you popped a long time ago
I suppose you’re one of those sheeple glued to the TV watching hour X hour updates on “cases” ?
As distinct from your bulletins from the front line of veracity?
Yeah, kinda.
Frontline of veracity..love it, so much the opposite as we know
BTW, this light grey which is used for draft messages is too light. I can’t read what I’ve written until I press “Post Comment” and then it’s too late to edit typos.
I really want to be libertarian on this issue, something doesn’t feel right about having two classes of citizens. But then, I realised, why am I wrapping my mind so hard to find a solution to people who don’t want to get the vaccine, to accomodate the wilful minority, to make concessions simply to preserve their individualistic freedoms, at the expense of the health of others. Realism at the expense of ideology.
But that’s beyond the point, COVID is a problem because it, unlike any other health issue we face, can overwhelm the healthcare system at the drop of the hat. That’s why vaccines are so important – so you’re not one of the ones taking a bed away from someone who fell off a roof. If you have the vaccine, chances are if you catch COVID, it will just be a sniffle; that’s not to mention the jury is still out about the vaccine’s effect on stopping transmission (there is concern nasal transmission is unaffected, which is where the main viral load stays). So do I care if you walk into a premise vaccinated or not – no not really, it’s your death wish. If I’m vaccinated, I can expect to catch the virus from you, or my vaccinated friend,or anyone really.
At least you’re well enough informed to know that teh Vaccanated are spreading teh Virus actually more than the unvaccanated. You’re also a humanist in not trying to enforce your will on others. I’ll take my chance & not take an experimental jab even though apparently I’m in an age group most at risk although without other medical problems.
Snip — ( Article from -see next post)
In truth, it merely required the dissemination of three seminal lies by the leviathan collaborators in broadcasting, newspapers and social media. These lies are:
1/ PCR tests are reliable indicators of infection by the virus. They aren’t.
2/ The virus is far more dangerous than a worse than normal season of influenza and respiratory infection;
3/ the risk of dying or being seriously ill as a result of infection by the virus justifies embarking upon experimental genetic therapy.
The Snip above came from an excellent article – “Nothing to Lose but Chains and Shame ” written by Stuart Lindsay a retired Federal Circuit Court Judge. https://tinyurl.com/2xhjv4nh . A bit much religious mention for my liking but excellent content re this present disaster that’s ruining Australia. A lot of the comments are well worth reading also. Worth the read & may be useful for decisions yet to be made.
That was an interesting read – the alarmist tone was off-putting for me though. It gave me pause, and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything, I do have to reflect on what has occurred in the last two years amid all the chaos. But yes, the ease and effectiveness of conditioning of the populace is something to worry about, regardless what one thinks of the merit of the idea.
What troubles me is that calm and rational debate about these issues has been a chimera. Any debate would have you lumped in with George Christensen. It’s essentially become a binary choice of allegiance.
Governments are made up of people, who themselves become accustomed to excessive authority; if there are no safeguards in place, or if they’re simply ignored, those same people running the Government, who themselves have been conditioned, will simply carry on with the same level of implicit authority – it is just the adaptability and inertia intrinsic in human nature.
What worries me the most is erosion of independent thought, which is being supplanted by thought that is taught, and knowledge that is given; everything already has at least two solutions, and you are to pick one of them, then move to the next issue. One would have to be blind to notice the decline in critical thinking in recent years.
Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly are all important – but freedom of thought is everything.
Thanks for reading it & that’s a fair & thoughtful appraisal.
Stuart Lindsay! The Freedom religious rally attendee, who is anti abortion and a homophopic, transgender hater, well done little James. Same ignorant base as the Trump/Republican voting lot of fools.
At least you’re well enough informed to know that teh Vaccanated are spreading teh Virus actually more than the unvaccanated.
Complete and utter bollocks, you deliberately – that or either you are illiterate – misrepresented the Israeli data.
I don’t think you understand what you read actually; plus some of your sources are dodgy, fancy that.
“The rate of false negatives — a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus — varies depending on how long infection has been present: in one study, the false-negative rate was 20% when testing was performed five days after symptoms began, but much higher (up to 100%) earlier in infection.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734
The false positive rate — that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not — should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself.