Coronavirus

[Baloo]

Regardless of who he is or how much of a smug smart arse he appeared to be. He did roll out a bunch of specific points regarding the laws that should be easy enough for anyone to read up n verify.
90% of people will more than likely just roll along with whatever some politician or their entrenched toadies demand. Fun begins when the other 10% start to arc up n push back.

Did he? He rolled out words. No mention of what document, what section, what chapter. No directly quoting from said "Constitution", just his interpretation. He rolled nothing but rabbit droppings.

I do the love the anti-vax retort when challenged by the lack of facts "Look it up yourself. It's there, do your own research" rather than supply said facts.

 

[MB78]

Falling further behind NSW, about 6 weeks behind now.

That is not a true reflection. That is based on Covid live numbers.

We will be at 80% first dose before the end of this month. Then all Moderna doses administered are 28 days. So they will be in before end of October. AZ is the 6 weeks but I can’t see a huge uptake on this for under 60’s at hubs now that Pfizer doses of 9 million doses has been confirmed for each of October, November.

Pfizer are apparently not giving us an even distribution for the month with more coming in the second half of October.

So I expect mid October that Dan Andrews will announce that they have sufficient supply to reduce the waiting period to 3 weeks. And as a result we will be calling in around Melbourne cup day the 80%. So I think we will be earlier than the 5th November which is the timeline.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1441287789476122628

 

[MB78]

More news on the vaccine supply. Mid October should never be a supply issue again.

Also we get an extra 32,000 Moderna doses to give out at the hubs over and above our chemist roll out.

Pfizer promises to deliver Australia's full October quota despite global distribution problems

The states and territories are being reassured they will receive all the Pfizer doses they were promised for October, as health authorities issue new forecasts for bolstered vaccine supplies through to the end of the year.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Giardiasis]

Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly patients

Between March and April 2020, 84 elderly patients with suspected COVID-19 living in two nursing homes of Yepes, Toledo (Spain) were treated early with antihistamines (dexchlorpheniramine, cetirizine or loratadine), adding azithromycin in the 25 symptomatic ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Al Bundy]

One man on the internet saying something doesn't make it true, or real, or based in any fact or logic.

This is just so typical of what how people fall for the whole ant-vax *smile*. This bloke talking is who? Does what? Trained where? Works as? Scholar of what?

No, just some bloke droning way on YouTube accompanied by a tribe of Anti-Vaxxers in the comments claiming the big truth will come out soon.

The key point is that if here was anything to his claims, Craig Kelly would be taking every state government and employer that are requiring vaccines to work to court. That sort of press and attention is what Kelly has wet dreams over.

FFS that rabbit hole must be crowded.

Thats your opinion. Fine but irrespective id post it. Its relevant.

He referred to Section 51 xxiiiA of the constitution

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament.

classic.austlii.edu.au

I was interested to check it. Havent found case law on it yet though

Discussion here on that part of constitution.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 Constitutionality of the BillThe constitutionality of the Bill 3.1 Many submitters to the inquiry raised questions in relation to the constitutionality of the Bill, specifically the power of the Commonwealth Parliament

www.aph.gov.au

 

[Al Bundy]

Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly patients

Between March and April 2020, 84 elderly patients with suspected COVID-19 living in two nursing homes of Yepes, Toledo (Spain) were treated early with antihistamines (dexchlorpheniramine, cetirizine or loratadine), adding azithromycin in the 25 symptomatic ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nice link on how Spain dealt with it last year in age care with good results to combat CV19.

I wonder if they are having success with tbe Delta variant

Love the conclusion. Snipet did copy paste but hope if had to read. Its in the last bit of link
Early treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients with antihistamines and azithromycin, and administration of antihistamines in asymptomatic and high risk patients, close contacts and relatives, had excellent outcomes in our population reducing fatality rate, hospital admissions and ICU admissions in this elderly population, regardless of patient's age and risk factors.

 

[DavidSSS]

One man on the internet saying something doesn't make it true, or real, or based in any fact or logic.

This is just so typical of what how people fall for the whole ant-vax *smile*. This bloke talking is who? Does what? Trained where? Works as? Scholar of what?

No, just some bloke droning way on YouTube accompanied by a tribe of Anti-Vaxxers in the comments claiming the big truth will come out soon.

The key point is that if here was anything to his claims, Craig Kelly would be taking every state government and employer that are requiring vaccines to work to court. That sort of press and attention is what Kelly has wet dreams over.

FFS that rabbit hole must be crowded.

I was going to watch that, then noticed it was 10 minutes, sorry, way too much of my time to be wasted.

Now, the bit about Federal law over-riding State law is technically correct, but there are a few factors to take into account here. If a state government mandates vaccination in any way then for Federal Law to over-ride then the state law must be contradicted by a Federal law - I can't think of any Federal law that mandating vaccines would contravene, so there's that avenue closed unless the Federal parliament legislates on this (doubtful). Also, even if the state law contradicts the federal law, if the state can prove that the feds have legislated in an area they don't have responsibility for then the feds lose, now, I'll admit the High Court has a long history of just interpreting Section 51 of the constitution to mean the feds can legislate on anything, but it would cause an argument which would discourage the feds from bothering.

Whether one sees mandatory vaccination as a human rights violation or not, this does not alter the fact that there is nothing I can see which would prevent them from doing this. Remember, we have no Bill of Rights in this country and all the Human Rights laws are laws made by parliament, and can be over-ridden by parliament. If you want an example just look at some of the exemptions churches get to openly discriminate - contravenes the Anti-Discrimination laws, sure, but an act of parliament can over-ride, or exempt certain sections of the population from, another act of parliament.

As for challenges to apps which record where you are, interesting how these mobs don't challenge the surveillance by private companies like the way some apps use GPS to track where you are. Just a political attack by RWNJs and most likely these cases are just a fiction and wouldn't get anywhere anyway.

DS

 

[Al Bundy]

.

 

[Al Bundy]

I was going to watch that, then noticed it was 10 minutes, sorry, way too much of my time to be wasted.

Now, the bit about Federal law over-riding State law is technically correct, but there are a few factors to take into account here. If a state government mandates vaccination in any way then for Federal Law to over-ride then the state law must be contradicted by a Federal law - I can't think of any Federal law that mandating vaccines would contravene, so there's that avenue closed unless the Federal parliament legislates on this (doubtful). Also, even if the state law contradicts the federal law, if the state can prove that the feds have legislated in an area they don't have responsibility for then the feds lose, now, I'll admit the High Court has a long history of just interpreting Section 51 of the constitution to mean the feds can legislate on anything, but it would cause an argument which would discourage the feds from bothering.

Whether one sees mandatory vaccination as a human rights violation or not, this does not alter the fact that there is nothing I can see which would prevent them from doing this. Remember, we have no Bill of Rights in this country and all the Human Rights laws are laws made by parliament, and can be over-ridden by parliament. If you want an example just look at some of the exemptions churches get to openly discriminate - contravenes the Anti-Discrimination laws, sure, but an act of parliament can over-ride, or exempt certain sections of the population from, another act of parliament.

As for challenges to apps which record where you are, interesting how these mobs don't challenge the surveillance by private companies like the way some apps use GPS to track where you are. Just a political attack by RWNJs and most likely these cases are just a fiction and wouldn't get anywhere anyway.

DS

Likewise DS, too long, fast fwded at bits, grabbed the section he was talking about.

Pity he didnt name actual or current cases happening he was aware of as it would give more creditability. I couldnt find anything. Posted to see what others thought.

Agree on the apps bit u mention. Normally as u install the app monitoring or access to parts of yr mobile its normally in the terms & conditions that most dont read

 

[Al Bundy]

Yeh, you'll find whatever you want on the net if you keep looking.

"I was just sent this link" would suggest Al is on the lookout for a good conspiracy theory.

Would suggest? Astute assumption that is completely wrong. BS generalisation that is wrong. Have a Q, why, ask it.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'll survive whatever happens. Can't vouch for you.

That's a weird take but ok.

 

[Sintiger]

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.

Putting people in boxes of beliefs is a way that many see the world. If you believe “this” you are “that” ( lefty or right winger etc) .
As you say many people are far more complex than that.

 

[22nd Man]

Employees will still be subject to any state labour laws that may be applicable as would employers be subject to any applicable state laws. They would be subject to the directions of the CHO the same as any other employer.

The commonwealth issues licenses for aged care facilities and provides operating agreements under which funding is provided to those holding the license, whether they be private or public operators.

That is exactly what I posted Sin.

My open ended question was whether the CHO has a mandate beyond the the declared emergency period or will the govt need to legislate specifically to keep certain sectors fully vaned as long as COVId is still a threat?

 

[TigerMasochist]

Did he? He rolled out words. No mention of what document, what section, what chapter. No directly quoting from said "Constitution", just his interpretation. He rolled nothing but rabbit droppings.

I do the love the anti-vax retort when challenged by the lack of facts "Look it up yourself. It's there, do your own research" rather than supply said facts.

Just because of you I had to go n listen to some of his words again. Thanks for that Balooga.
I'm gunna assume we have some sort of big fat story book of rules that's called a Constipation, erm ummmm Constitution? He mentioned certain chapter or section numbers. Plus referendum result from a certain long bygone era. Probably far to weighty a tome for my limited capabilities so obviously I'll leave it for the intellectuals n master googlers to look up n verify or debunk as they wish.

Just absolutely lovin the hysterical you're an anti vaxxer retort when someone raises a query, or disagrees with certain points or opinions over certain things.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Putting people in boxes of beliefs is a way that many see them world. If you believe “this” you are “that” ( lefty or right winger etc) .
As you say many people are far more complex than that.

Not any more Sinnerman. Mixed up muddled up middle ground of uncertainty or curiosity doesn't exist in this world of " I'm right, *smile* you " attitude.

 

[Sintiger]

That is exactly what I posted Sin.

My open ended question was whether the CHO has a mandate beyond the the declared emergency period or will the govt need to legislate specifically to keep certain sectors fully vaned as long as COVId is still a threat?

My understanding is that aged care employers have to comply with state laws as they apply. I don’t believe that the CHOs jurisdiction on these matters is changed at all just because an aged care employer operates their business under a license from the commonwealth. They are still employers in the state of Victoria and the CHO would have jurisdiction. No aged care employees are federal employees.

Aged care vaccinations is complicated because as you may recall the commonwealth decided they would take responsibility to vaccinate residents but they didn’t take responsibility for staff. It got messy because the commonwealth also in some cases engaged state public health providers to vaccinate residents for them.

it’s all part of the mess we have of jurisdiction between states and feds and the lack of leadership.

 

[Sintiger]

Not any more Sinnerman. Mixed up muddled up middle ground of uncertainty or curiosity doesn't exist in this world of " I'm right, *smile* you " attitude.

It still does TM, it’s just that those who don’t exist in that area you describe and have fixed intransigent views are the ones making all the noise.

 

[caesar]

And the good news despite the anti-vax minority:

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy plunges to record low, poll finds

The latest Resolve Political Monitor findings suggest Australia could achieve a 90 per cent vaccine target across the adult population.

www.theage.com.au

 

[tigermike]

New record 847. Most of it will be in Hume I presume where people seem to have just given up on the lockdown rules. Vaccination rate won't hit 80% first jab until next week so golf has to wait for the vaccine hesitants to make up their mind. Why am I still following the rules?

 

[jb03]

Think the modelling that says we are going to hit 2000 cases per day in Vic might be right.