Local AFL footy will be mandated by the AFL. Other community groups will be mandated by their constitution. In fact, with majority acceptance it's relarively easy to ban or suspend a member. The majority will dictate what happens at these community groups and by the sounds of it the majority want everyone to be vaccinated. Maybe they'll end up with the vaxxed and unvaxxed chess clubs.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Yes exactly, that's the short of it. "Their" people. Or "their" tribe weren't involved. Or allies of "their" people/tribe.
And that’s the problem.
100%. I think only the Government can mandate themselves and those that contract for them ie childcare and government construction projects. As I have stated before after health professionals start with politicians their offices, and all public servants who work in CBD. Build trust that we are all in this together.
After that allow personal accountability for each employer to make a decision that’s best for their circumstances. No mandates from Government. They would be taking more considerations onboard as they consider Worksafe industrial manslaughter laws, safety of their customers, will people feel comfortable attending there.
I feel that it’s so wrong asking cafes etc etc to ask for a vaccination passport. As we all know it’s already very very difficult to get people to check in and wear a mask. Just attend a service station to see what I mean.
You already have the waxed and unwaxed at footy clubs, so now we will have vaxed and waxed, vaxed and unwaxed......
yes all those are your opinion and others may agree or disagree. My point is that ultimately there needs to be a legal framework and legislation and some things will probably have to be tested in a court.
He is the face of that medical opinion and he is the one with the power under legislation but he is not making these decisions in isolation. There are lots of other medical experts involved
No doubt you are right. But why is this such a mystery, of who is involved? Best way to build confidence is to be more transparent.
When you think the world is *smile*..... at least we have hope!
These young fellas were just on the ABC..... Impressive!
These young fellas were just on the ABC..... Impressive!
Yes when one frames their whole identity on perceived victimhood. Their default position is to look at every situation through those optics. Nothing just happens. Every event is intertwined within the framework of things that cause their victimhood. As you infer. Usually these disparate groups have varying focuses and explained reasons for their particular victimhood. But the pandemic and the management measures around it have oddly caused their various manifestations of perceived victimhood to converge for a moment.
It's why I have said in other threads. There was wishful thinking that once the western world reaches a point of post-religion (we seem pretty close to being there), we reach a utopian endpoint where our society is run by logic, reason and rational thought. However I believe this type of vacuous victim identity politics has filled the void of religious superstition and dogma. Not only that, social media acts as it's steroid, to pump it up and derange the collective societal mind even further.
Last edited:
Two in New Mexico Die from Ivermectin Overdose
The New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) began requiring the reporting of overdoses from Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug commonly used in pets and livestock. While Ivermectin does exist as medicine for humans, online misinformation is touting it as a treatment for COVID-19. Ivermectin is...
www.leacountytribune.com
Top ivermectin expert says the drug does not treat COVID-19
Dr. Timothy Geary, one of the world's foremost experts of Ivermectin, says the drug does not have any effectiveness fighting viruses.
Geary, who is the Research Chair in Parasite Biotechnology at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, says that the 2020 study which spawned much of the Ivermectin-craze is not being correctly read.
He told DailyMail.com that the study did show that Ivermectin could inhibit the replication of COVID-19 virus cells, which is what many are reading from the study that makes them believe the drug has virus killing properties.
Geary explained, though, that the concentration of the drug used in the study were so high that it could not be used for treatment in a human, and would likely cause an overdose.
'In that study they showed that in cell cultures, Ivermectin could inhibit [Covid] replication, but the concentrations required for that effect were in a range called the micromolar range - very high concentrations relative to what you would find in the plasma of a treated person or an animal, which would be 20 to 50 times lower.'
He does not see too much harm in people using the drug in human-sized doses, though, as Geary assures that it is safe for consumption.
It is safe to use in doses of around 200 micrograms, and even people who are using it to incorrectly treat Covid are unlikely to suffer any major symptoms.
'There's no significant toxicity from those doses,' Geary says.
He also mentioned that the drug has been used billions of times in between humans and animals, and has never shown any ability to combat viruses outside of the laboratory.
Ivermectin Research Has a Big Fraud Problem, Scientists Say
Numerous studies suggesting ivermectin can treat or prevent covid-19 have dodgy data behind them, according to an international group of researchers.
gizmodo.com
Last edited:
Small point but there is no local AFL. There are local Aussie Rules leagues, but the AFL is the national league. Bizarrely it also makes decisions for other Aussie Rules leagues.
Good post, but i disagree with the label pinning unionists as left wing.
Socially many sit to the right, and a fair proportion to the far right, not even including those who are extreme far right nutters.
Absolutely agree Brodders. I suppose I was more phrasing in terms of how those that think of themselves as left (so they see their natural allies are the ALP, Unions, Greens etc) sometimes miss the nuances of the movements they identify as friends and allies, in trying to create a wishfully neat picture of who "their" people are and who their foes are.
Personally I sit a bit right of centre socially and a touch left of centre economically and environmentally. And hence, people find me a political oddity and are baffled. Can't put me into a neat box. It means of course, I really struggle placing my vote.
You might suggest based on my disparate positioning, I might have some kinship with the nutters you mention above. You'd be pleased to hear, I can say, unequivocally, no I do not!
I think my right of centre streak though is genuine social conservatism and traditionalism. Based around taking on personal duty, discipline and responsibility to firstly your family and then by extension to the community that supports you and your family. Mutual obligation and duty between individuals and institutions that form a society.....that sort of thing. Where as a lot of these protestors who we are talking about as right wing probably have tendencies towards libertarianism. So again there is right of centre and then there is right of centre.
Last edited:
Yes sorry I was distinguishing Australian Rules from other football codes. You do have to wear the AFL logo on your jumpers.
Last edited:
It’s fashionable to be a victim; a few have been AOTY lately.
And of course they have a right to protest given BLM went ahead unimpeded, as knuckleheaded as it is in the circumstances. It’s when they get violent that they lose any neutral support they might have. Putting coppers in hospital with broken bones… I mentioned bullets earlier. If that’s what it comes to, there is only themselves to blame.
Anti-authoritarianism isn’t uniquely Australian but the current runs deep here. I just think you need to pick your battles. This one reeks of dumb.
True, agree, seen a lot of crap too.
This was diffetent hadnt seen it before thats why i questioned It. I'll put it down as a myth
NSW had a good solution that is apparently encouraging vaccination for construction workers without the heavy-handed mandatory approach. Those building sites that allowed unvaccinated workers to be on-site were required to operate at 50% capacity. I don't believe those individuals were identified but they knew they were stopping others from working so they soon fell into line and got vaccinated. That approach could be costly for the co. if it goes on too long and won't work on selfish nuts who don't care about anyone else but it has worked so perhaps should be tried here. It's the heavy-handed orders that these workers object to so it's worth a try.
