Coronavirus

[Giardiasis]

Mass immunisation only works because all/most people do it. If everyone waits for a "large history" for a vaccine, they don't work.

Again the public good argument wins, but I know that is irrelevant to a Libertarian.

The only thing all libertarians would have issue with is coercing people to take it.

Do you consider people that have caught the virus, recovered and developed natural immunity as more or less or the same level of risk as someone that has taken the vaccine?

 

[Ian4]

I am sure the worlds best health management team will move quickly towards this. In the meantime I will be getting my test tommorow so I can undertake the only? recreation that requires a COVId test to participate in this side of Tokyo. Yes I can go skiing but cannot visit my mother, negative test, vaccinated or otherwise. But in a rule book that closes the tatslotto counter inside a supermarket but lets one in a newsagent stay open consistency and logic takes a back seat.

Well if you don't see the logic, then i'm not sure why i should bother explaining it. It has already been explained on numerous occasions anyway.

 

[Brodders17]

The only thing all libertarians would have issue with is coercing people to take it.

Do you consider people that have caught the virus, recovered and developed natural immunity as more or less or the same level of risk as someone that has taken the vaccine?

I assume Libertarians also have issue with government intervention in the form of any sort of lockdown, government intervention in the form of free vaccination, government intervention in the research into and development of vaccinations, government intervention in the dissemination of accurate information about Covid, and government intervention in the health care of treatment of those who contract Covid.

 

[RoarEmotion]

The only thing all libertarians would have issue with is coercing people to take it.

Do you consider people that have caught the virus, recovered and developed natural immunity as more or less or the same level of risk as someone that has taken the vaccine?

They are a different level of risk to the public health care system we all pay for while they go through the disease and cause a different level of risk to the people they come into contact with.

since you are against coercion, in your alternate world view, can we have nurses/doctors chose not to treat people who have covid and didn’t get vaccinated? Currently they don’t get a choice.

at the end of the disease running its course I’m not sure what the science says but my gut would say it’s about the same.

 

[Ian4]

233 cases in NSW and 2 deaths. NSW pass the 4,000 mark on day 49 of this outbreak. 204 more cases tomorrow will put them past the 10,000 mark in total cases since the start of the pandemic.

 

[RoarEmotion]

NSW CHO : please please please - her hands must be so tied Reporters asking some really pointed questions now about mobility vs vic Eg Bunnings

answer is our mobility is low but please please please don’t be mobile.

 

[Giardiasis]

since you are against coercion, in your alternate world view, can we have nurses/doctors chose not to treat people who have covid and didn’t get vaccinated? Currently they don’t get a choice.

The problem is public ownership muddles the water. People are forced to pay for a service and the health providers are forced to provide it other than quitting their jobs. Under my alternative world view there would be no public ownership and private health providers would be under no obligation to treat anyone just as patients wouldn't be forced to pay for a monopoly service. I imagine health insurance would be a lot cheaper for people that choose to vaccinate.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Man in his 20s has died in Sydney. NO pre existing conditions. 20+. Years. Old.
So sad & concerning.

If only he'd had access to Pfizer he may have survived..
Yes I'm aware he could have taken AZ but many mixed messages around that for young people.

 

[RoarEmotion]

The problem is public ownership muddles the water. People are forced to pay for a service and the health providers are forced to provide it other than quitting their jobs. Under my alternative world view there would be no public ownership and private health providers would be under no obligation to treat anyone just as patients wouldn't be forced to pay for a monopoly service. I imagine health insurance would be a lot cheaper for people that choose to vaccinate.

So if your health insurance premium went up its ok?
But we shouldn’t tax/penalise (coerce) people who don’t vaccinate by a public organisation?

IMO this is Exactly the same with one being administered by a private organisation and one by a public organisation.

In this world where your non vaccination costs are imposed by a private body on you (and you can chose whether to pay them, not pay them, shop around etc or get vaccinated) what would you do? My view is that this is your ethical choice right now. Pretend you are In That world and do what you would do then. You will need to calculate your expected cost on the healthcare system and add a profit margin to the insurance premium to understand the dollars side. This still ignores your societal impact.

 

[Ian4]

This is gonna go on forever

 

[RoarEmotion]

Why can’t most politicians just say they made a mistake. Impossible to learn if you think you are perfect. Is our system so brutal that people can’t deal with the fact none of us are perfect?

The constant comparison by Gladys to compare to what would have happened if they did nothing vs the obvious comparison to compare what would have happened if they locked down hard early just triggers me. I can’t imagine how mad I’d be if I lived in NSW.

 

[22nd Man]

Well if you don't see the logic, then i'm not sure why i should bother explaining it. It has already been explained on numerous occasions anyway.

No obligation for you to explain anything Ian. You put up your views I put up mine.

 

[Giardiasis]

So if your health insurance premium went up its ok?
But we shouldn’t tax/penalise (coerce) people who don’t vaccinate by a public organisation?

IMO this is Exactly the same with one being administered by a private organisation and one by a public organisation.

The difference is voluntary choice. People are free to transact as they see fit. A huge difference ethically. Economically, prices would allow trade-offs to be calculated with some semblance of reality. Different providers will have different views on what the cost savings of vaccination are and it wouldn't be a one size fits all.

In this world where your non vaccination costs are imposed by a private body on you (and you can chose whether to pay them, not pay them, shop around etc or get vaccinated) what would you do? My view is that this is your ethical choice right now. Pretend you are In That world and do what you would do then. You will need to calculate your expected cost on the healthcare system and add a profit margin to the insurance premium to understand the dollars side. This still ignores your societal impact.

It would come into my calculus of whether I get the vaccine or not, the cost to my bank balance being one aspect of it (not the single determinant).

 

[jb03]

Why can’t most politicians just say they made a mistake. Impossible to learn if you think you are perfect. Is our system so brutal that people can’t deal with the fact none of us are perfect?

The constant comparison by Gladys to compare to what would have happened if they did nothing vs the obvious comparison to compare what would have happened if they locked down hard early just triggers me. I can’t imagine how mad I’d be if I lived in NSW.

@eZyT might be able to comment but I think from memory Peter Beattie, when QLD premier, used to do that. He just apoogised for everything and said next time they would get it right. Takes the heat of the discussion immediately.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Why can’t most politicians just say they made a mistake. Impossible to learn if you think you are perfect. Is our system so brutal that people can’t deal with the fact none of us are perfect?

The constant comparison by Gladys to compare to what would have happened if they did nothing vs the obvious comparison to compare what would have happened if they locked down hard early just triggers me. I can’t imagine how mad I’d be if I lived in NSW.

When one does International Business courses and get into looking at cultures of East Asia and how it effects management and governance. It inevitably does a whole heap of navel gazing on the concept of 'face'. And how the concept of saving 'face' effects management and governance outcomes (sometimes adversely). While there is some truth in it and it does probably present more formally in those cultures than in western countries. It is a bit cliche to suggest it is unique to these countries.

In western countries, we very much have the concept of face. And what you are rightly observing is those same adverse consequences to integrity of management and governance as a result of saving 'face'. The whole COVID situation has been riddled with it from the start. Westerners inferring that 'face' is somewhat a uniquely East Asian concept don't know their own culture. It may manifest a bit differently, but it very much is an integral part of the culture.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I'm sure Gladys & Scott sent Dan a text today congratulating him on beating down Delta & asking how he did it.

 

[DavidSSS]

I assume Libertarians also have issue with government intervention in the form of any sort of lockdown, government intervention in the form of free vaccination, government intervention in the research into and development of vaccinations, government intervention in the dissemination of accurate information about Covid, and government intervention in the health care of treatment of those who contract Covid.

What you have to understand with the so-called libertarians (a term they are trying to steal off real anarchists) is that they envisage a society where all relations are free market and there is no political realm.

There is no sense of community, there are only individuals and private property is the most important thing, seemingly more important than human safety going by the above.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

What you have to understand with the so-called libertarians (a term they are trying to steal off real anarchists) is that they envisage a society where all relations are free market and there is no political realm.

There is no sense of community, there are only individuals and private property is the most important thing, seemingly more important than human safety going by the above.

DS

It seems if it was real it would just descend into anarchy pretty quickly. I can’t envisage how it plays out any other way.

With that said, and like anything, I’m sure there are parts of it that are good, but when you ride any system dogmatically to a boundary condition, it usually doesn’t work. Individual rights vs society rights seems to be a key schism in any polarising debate (environment, COVID…even religion especially in sexuality space and olympics inclusion vs fairness of competition in gender preference space)

 

[RoarEmotion]

When one does International Business courses and get into looking at cultures of East Asia and how it effects management and governance. It inevitably does a whole heap of navel gazing on the concept of 'face'. And how the concept of saving 'face' effects management and governance outcomes (sometimes adversely). While there is some truth in it and it does probably present more formally in those cultures than in western countries. It is a bit cliche to suggest it is unique to these countries.

In western countries, we very much have the concept of face. And what you are rightly observing is those same adverse consequences to integrity of management and governance as a result of saving 'face'. The whole COVID situation has been riddled with it from the start. Westerners inferring that 'face' is somewhat a uniquely East Asian concept don't know their own culture. It may manifest a bit differently, but it very much is an integral part of the culture.

Having done some of these courses myself, one of the other key items in crisis response was to own it. BP deepwater horizon was one example where this didn’t happen and Johnson and Johnson owning the Tylenol tampering issue the opposite. Potentially that was focused on western cultures - but given we are in one I think the public moves on pretty quickly when leaders own an issue. The opposition will point out the governments failings irrespective of whether they own it or not.

 

[eZyT]

@eZyT might be able to comment but I think from memory Peter Beattie, when QLD premier, used to do that. He just apoogised for everything and said next time they would get it right. Takes the heat of the discussion immediately.

that was definately a goto in beatties playbook.

he used to wear a big liam baker grin which was pretty endearing too.