Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • jack_sparrow

    2853

  • ShortForBob

    2376

  • Ease the sheet.

    1639

  • LB 15

    1568

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The people who aren't on the news, the nurses, drs, police etc are fucking legends. The professionals deserve as much thanks as we can muster. And that starts with us helping them and gettin

Had our second AZ jab on Thursday. Rolled up at 7am to the doctors, people waiting in line out the front and a receptionist popping in and out like a yoyo keeping tabs on the number of people.  

No, they well and truely live off me (and others who work in the private world and earn enough to be a net contributor to government)

Posted Images

11 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I do not want them bringing their religious/social biases and pushing them down a basically secular society's throat.

I don't personally have a problem - so far - with the religious discrimination bill that Meli's all in a twitter about, though. 

It's also not unreasonable for a religious group to have their facilities run in accordance with their beliefs. This one gets somewhat tricky if they take taxpayers' money though. 

I need to swallow a bucket of humility here and say thank you to Meli for mentioning it, as I hadn't seen it.

And I think it should irk us more than you state. By definition, all religions bar one are bullshit, and I'm not sure about the one remaining either. So in general terms I'm completely against having complete crap codified in our laws. (Yeah, I know, there is a lot of other crap, but that doesn't mean we should allow more).

But specifically with this proposed legislation, I see little good that it can do, and massive potential for harm. Trivial example, my mother is in a nominally Catholic nursing home. They occasionally have mass, and all the residents attend. ( everyone goes to bingo as well, lots of Fomo amongst the residents). Now, if they said that you had to be Catholic to attend, all the dementia dears would probably say 'ok. You then open up a raft of issues like the church wanting their tithe, and having authority figures convincing the folks of some of the intolerant prejudice in the bible. If they were to go down this path, I think we need the legal backing to disrupt it.

I'll leave the predominantly patriarchal nature of most religions for Meli to rail at.

I also think its a cop out to avoid the whole gov funding / tax free status of religious facilities. They do get special treatment due to their shared fallacious delusions. Why should we accept extending that? We should be cutting it back now that we don't have the need to appeal to an all powerful deity to stop folks from eating dodgy shellfish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Se7en said:

I need to swallow a bucket of humility here and say thank you to Meli for mentioning it, as I hadn't seen it.

And I think it should irk us more than you state. By definition, all religions bar one are bullshit, and I'm not sure about the one remaining either. So in general terms I'm completely against having complete crap codified in our laws. (Yeah, I know, there is a lot of other crap, but that doesn't mean we should allow more).

But specifically with this proposed legislation, I see little good that it can do, and massive potential for harm. Trivial example, my mother is in a nominally Catholic nursing home. They occasionally have mass, and all the residents attend. ( everyone goes to bingo as well, lots of Fomo amongst the residents). Now, if they said that you had to be Catholic to attend, all the dementia dears would probably say 'ok. You then open up a raft of issues like the church wanting their tithe, and having authority figures convincing the folks of some of the intolerant prejudice in the bible. If they were to go down this path, I think we need the legal backing to disrupt it.

I'll leave the predominantly patriarchal nature of most religions for Meli to rail at.

I also think its a cop out to avoid the whole gov funding / tax free status of religious facilities. They do get special treatment due to their shared fallacious delusions. Why should we accept extending that? We should be cutting it back now that we don't have the need to appeal to an all powerful deity to stop folks from eating dodgy shellfish. 

I don't really have a disagreement with any of that WRT facilities used by non-members of the chosen religion. As I said, take public money, get subject to secular restrictions. Choose.

WRT authority figures and preaching doctrine, there I disagree. I think they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

And the rest of us are perfectly within our rights to mock them for it.

End of story.

Now if they try to ENFORCE their religious strictures, there I draw a very, very solid line. Believe anything you wish. Say anything you wish.

Act on those beliefs and I'll support coming down on you like a ton of bricks. Don't care what religion it is, don't try pushing your beliefs into public policy.

If the snowflakes hadn't tried to use the 'offend' provisions of the various discrimination acts to shut down stuff they didn't want to hear none of this would likely have ever gotten to where it is now. Personally I'd like to see the word 'offend' removed in toto.

NOBODY has the right not to be offended IMO. Because if somebody does, everybody does and the scope of shit to get offended over is pretty much infinite.

Offence isn't given, it's taken. And you can choose not to, if you're a mature adult.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LB 15 said:

...................... a holiday he took two years ago?

There's just too many skeletons in the closet to fuel this comedy show, and Morrison just keeps digging, remember the denial when his mate Houston couldn't make it past the butler at the White House in Sept '19 ?

How's this one..........Blind Trust Calls in Favour:

Murdoch's lunch date with Morrison during a comfort break on the way back from the Glasgow Copout has paid dividends. The request for an ABC bashing in return for the 4 Corners “The Big Lie” program. is underway.................”After spending the last 12 months fighting tooth and nail to prevent anyone from investigating the behaviour of the man who was the highest-ranking law officer in the land, the Government has today revealed that the ABC can’t hide from scrutiny.”

"Shanghai Sam" Morrison can't take a trick these days.................... :lol: 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/23/senate-inquiry-into-abc-suspended-after-labor-and-greens-motion-gets-cross-bench-support

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I don't personally have a problem - so far - with the religious discrimination bill that Meli's all in a twitter about,

....

FKT

In every jurisdiction in the country, there is a document entitled "Legislation Handbook" or similar.  It sets out the hows, whys and whens of the process of bringing legislation into effect.  In every one of those handbooks you will find a statement along the lines of "legislation must not be used to provide visibility to a matter.  Legislation must only be enacted when there is a need ..."

The fact that the country has got along fine without a religious discrimination Act for over a hundred years is IMHO a reasonable indication that legislation on point is not necessary. Another test to apply is "what is the mischief that this legislation is intended to address?  And how will the legislation achieve it's intended result?"  I haven't heard anyone answer these questions so far (I'm not even sure I've heard them asked!).

Of course Scomo has dismantled almost every parliamentary convention already, so he's unlikely to back off on his signature achievement.  He is just taking his cues from the Trump playbook. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

The fact that the country has got along fine without a religious discrimination Act for over a hundred years is IMHO a reasonable indication that legislation on point is not necessary. 

It's clear that this legislation is a reaction to other legislation that has been "recently" enacted. Hence the "need" for it now.

Personally I think there should be a combined legislation for protection of religion AND the removal of the tax exempt status of religions. A fair trade off.

 

I think there should be a level (common sense) of protection against being forced to abide by laws that are against their beliefs. 

If a god bothering baker does not want to make wedding cakes for gay weddings, let them.

Would you want to eat a cake made by someone forced to by law?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dark Knight said:

It's clear that this legislation is a reaction to other legislation that has been "recently" enacted. Hence the "need" for it now.

Personally I think there should be a combined legislation for protection of religion AND the removal of the tax exempt status of religions. A fair trade off.

 

I think there should be a level (common sense) of protection against being forced to abide by laws that are against their beliefs. 

If a god bothering baker does not want to make wedding cakes for gay weddings, let them.

Would you want to eat a cake made by someone forced to by law?

 

Should a group that receives tax exemptions be allowed to discriminate re it's employees religion or lack of religion or sexuality?

Slippery slope.

It's not needed so what's Scomo doing and why?

The cake is piece of American idiocy.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

Should a group that receives tax exemptions be allowed to discriminate re it's employees religion or lack of religion or sexuality?

Slippery slope.

It's not needed so what's Scomo doing and why?

The cake is piece of American idiocy.

  

Scomo is doing it because he is a God botherer. I don't think any religious organisation should be allowed ax exempt status. 

For all of his faults, in my book his God Bothering is the worst. All politician are dodgy liars, but not all are God Botherers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dark Knight said:

Scomo is doing it because he is a God botherer. I don't think any religious organisation should be allowed ax exempt status. 

For all of his faults, in my book his God Bothering is the worst. All politician are dodgy liars, but not all are God Botherers. 

I agree. Never trust a sky pilot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

WRT authority figures and preaching doctrine, there I disagree. I think they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

And the rest of us are perfectly within our rights to mock them for it.

And this is where I don't trust the new legislation.

Now I've only read what is in the news, but it seems to say that it gives religious nutjobs protection to preach whatever they want, so long as it is an honest represtation of their belief system. And it would seen to protect them from offensive rebuttal from non believers.

To use your earlier example, they are protected in saying "stone the adulterer". But you would not be protected in responding with "thou shalt not kill" - as you are not a true believer of that faith. So it seems to protect their right to preach while removing others right to mock. And when you have folks telling my kids that they are bastards and going to hell because their mother and I are not married... I want to right to mock, loudly and publically.

Having that ability restricted doesn't sound like fun.

Agree with you re: taking offence. Take as much of it as you like, not my problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

It's not needed so what's Scomo doing and why?

Fulfilling a promise to a minority group from last election, in a blatant ploy to get them to support him in the next one?

Too little too late I'd guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Se7en said:

And this is where I don't trust the new legislation.

Now I've only read what is in the news, but it seems to say that it gives religious nutjobs protection to preach whatever they want, so long as it is an honest represtation of their belief system. And it would seen to protect them from offensive rebuttal from non believers.

To use your earlier example, they are protected in saying "stone the adulterer". But you would not be protected in responding with "thou shalt not kill" - as you are not a true believer of that faith. So it seems to protect their right to preach while removing others right to mock. And when you have folks telling my kids that they are bastards and going to hell because their mother and I are not married... I want to right to mock, loudly and publically.

Having that ability restricted doesn't sound like fun.

Agree with you re: taking offence. Take as much of it as you like, not my problem.

Not sure of your interpretation but stipulating it's correct -

Good luck with a court case trying to determine whether or not someone is a 'true believer' or not. That should *really* have legs.

And what happens when the religion I profess to truly believe has doctrine totally counter to someone else's?

Lots of religions out there to choose from. They had to add Jedi to the census eventually because so many people were writing it in, I believe.

Terry Pratchett offers a lot of choices....

If they want to stop me mocking religious doctrine (cant and tendentious cant at that) good luck with that. Not going to happen.

Let them take offence at the mockery. Like Einstein said about the universe and human stupidity, there's no limit to how much offence someone wants to take. Not my problem.

And same same for the LGBTITSUP crowd. They really should read Jack Vance's 'Planet of Adventure' series, particularly the part concerning humans who spent a lot of time & effort customising their genitalia. He really was ahead of his time.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Not sure of your interpretation but stipulating it's correct -

Good luck with a court case trying to determine whether or not someone is a 'true believer' or not. That should *really* have legs.

And what happens when the religion I profess to truly believe has doctrine totally counter to someone else's?

As I said, I have only read what was in the papers, so I am happy to be corrected.

Yes, I also wonder by who, and how, a belief is classified as a religion. After all, if the delirious ramblings of a second rate sci fi author make the cut, the bar is pretty low. Not to mention the syphilis ridden pom just trying to get his leg over without buying an indulgence. Ambulance chasers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

So, I have no idea what problem it is trying to solve, but can see a shitload it may introduce. So I sincerely hope scomo is told to GTFO.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Se7en said:

So, I have no idea what problem it is trying to solve, but can see a shitload it may introduce. So I sincerely hope scomo is told to GTFO.

 

I think part of it was aimed at the various organisations that purport via contract terms to dictate what their employees or representatives may say concerning their religious beliefs, using their own (not corporate) accounts.

Israel Folau saying homosexuals were destined for hell because the bible said so is an example. The idiots told him he had to stop expressing his beliefs then terminated his contract.

The proper response was for everyone to troll him and mock him. Instead they created a cause celebre. Massive own goal and this shit is part of it.

Another case, a local Tasmanian guy took action in the Tasmanian Discrimination Commission against a bishop for said bishop expressing centuries old doctrine. The grounds being the Tasmanian guy was offended by the speech. And the Discrimination Commission took it on instead of telling him to HTFU and go mock the bishop outside his own church.

Then all sorts of other shit get piled in.

So - now we get this stupidity in response.

Whatever - lots of scope here for future mischief-making.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

And If a religious group can hire people favoring on religious grounds, cant they also stipulate certain requirements in their contracts. Like all staff must attend religious service in a school or be censured/ fired?

It's too close to the American born again/ Pentecostal skuldugery.

Remember Trump being prayed over? Ugh.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

And If a religious group can hire people favoring on religious grounds, cant they also stipulate certain requirements in their contracts. Like all staff must attend religious service in a school or be censured/ fired?

I don’t see the problem with that. If you don’t want to do it, don’t work for a god botherer group. Allowing them to be open about it will save people from making the mistake of working for them. 
 

I once went for an interview at the HQ of some cigarette company. They were very open about embracing their product in the office (late 80’s)I very quickly realised that I did not want to work there. 
 

if you got a job working for churchies, the underlying culture will not suit non-god botherers, but current laws might see you being confused and take the job.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

I don’t see the problem with that. If you don’t want to do it, don’t work for a god botherer group. Allowing them to be open about it will save people from making the mistake of working for them. 
 

I once went for an interview at the HQ of some cigarette company. They were very open about embracing their product in the office (late 80’s)I very quickly realised that I did not want to work there. 
 

if you got a job working for churchies, the underlying culture will not suit non-god botherers, but current laws might see you being confused and take the job.

This.

Back in the day I got some approaches from the recruiting firms asking if I was interested in working on a data mining project.

Further enquiry led to finding out it was for a wagering/gaming company.

So - no. Some things I won't do for money.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

This.

Back in the day I got some approaches from the recruiting firms asking if I was interested in working on a data mining project.

Further enquiry led to finding out it was for a wagering/gaming company.

So - no. Some things I won't do for money.

FKT

I was always jealous of a mate who got a job doing IT at CUB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

I once went for an interview at the HQ of some cigarette company. They were very open about embracing their product in the office (late 80’s)I very quickly realised that I did not want to work there. 

Ease had the same experience at the Anal lube factory. He has been there over a decade now...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

I don’t see the problem with that. If you don’t want to do it, don’t work for a god botherer group. Allowing them to be open about it will save people from making the mistake of working for them. 
 

I once went for an interview at the HQ of some cigarette company. They were very open about embracing their product in the office (late 80’s)I very quickly realised that I did not want to work there. 
 

if you got a job working for churchies, the underlying culture will not suit non-god botherers, but current laws might see you being confused and take the job.

That's all very well for small companies (well, no employee should be pressured to join religious practices in their work environment)

But what about the big employers? Hospitals, schools etc? even big IT companies.

My husband had a job with Oracle in Amsterdam. (Sub contractor not perm employee).

Almost all of the team on that project were mid western Americans, The boss was serious a born again Christian, (huge portrait of their reverend in their living room, prayer meetings at his house etc).

He used to come into work Monday morning and gently chastise his subordinates if they hadn't been seen in church on Sunday.

I have little doubt that his recruitment practices would be favoring those of similar ilk. 

This proposed legislation is unnecessary and un Australian. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShortForBob said:

That's all very well for small companies (well, no employee should be pressured to join religious practices in their work environment)

But what about the big employers? Hospitals, schools etc? even big IT companies.

My husband had a job with Oracle in Amsterdam. (Sub contractor not perm employee).

Almost all of the team on that project were mid western Americans, The boss was serious a born again Christian, (huge portrait of their reverend in their living room, prayer meetings at his house etc).

He used to come into work Monday morning and gently chastise his subordinates if they hadn't been seen in church on Sunday.

I have little doubt that his recruitment practices would be favoring those of similar ilk. 

This proposed legislation is unnecessary and un Australian. 

The proposed legislation allows discrimination.

It's no surprise that some white men here are ok with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

That's all very well for small companies (well, no employee should be pressured to join religious practices in their work environment)

But what about the big employers? Hospitals, schools etc? even big IT companies.

My husband had a job with Oracle in Amsterdam. (Sub contractor not perm employee).

Almost all of the team on that project were mid western Americans, The boss was serious a born again Christian, (huge portrait of their reverend in their living room, prayer meetings at his house etc).

He used to come into work Monday morning and gently chastise his subordinates if they hadn't been seen in church on Sunday.

I have little doubt that his recruitment practices would be favoring those of similar ilk. 

This proposed legislation is unnecessary and un Australian. 

What has that got to do with working for a religion based organisation? isn’t that what Scomos god-bother legislation is about? It’s certainly what I’m talking about.

 

anyway, that sort of recruiting practice happens now.

try getting a Cobol mainframe job at certain large organisations in Melbourne when you are a white Aussie. 
 

it’s annoying but they did me a favour.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Dark Knight said:

What has that got to do with working for a religion based organisation? isn’t that what Scomos god-bother legislation is about? It’s certainly what I’m talking about.

 

anyway, that sort of recruiting practice happens now.

try getting a Cobol mainframe job at certain large organisations in Melbourne when you are a white Aussie. 
 

it’s annoying but they did me a favour.
 

 

Currently, it's illegal to ask about religious beliefs at an interview.

Will this legislation over ride that for religiously based employers?

Most of our big private hospitals are Catholic.

Many private schools are religious.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The proposed legislation allows discrimination.

It's no surprise that some white men here are ok with it.

The only people posting on this thread are white males - apart from Meli of course. She is Greek. You will need to be more specific. And for the record, I hate discrimination in any form. I believe that religious nut jobs like Israel Folau spewing their hate against minorities should be packed up with all the other Jigabooes and sent home. Fucking Darkies hey!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

The only people posting on this thread are white males - apart from Meli of course. She is Greek. You will need to be more specific. And for the record, I hate discrimination in any form. I believe that religious nut jobs like Israel Folau spewing their hate against minorities should be packed up with all the other Jigabooes and sent home. Fucking Darkies hey!

Under this legislation, Issy would be sniffing bums and spewing his bullshit.

Some here are fine with that.

Thanks Scomo!

Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Kids have suffered enough’: Experts question rules excluding unvaccinated teens

https://www.theage.com.au/national/kids-have-suffered-enough-experts-question-rules-excluding-unvaccinated-teens-20211125-p59bz6.html

 

Prominent Australian paediatricians warn rules banning unvaccinated 12 to 15 year-olds in Victoria from attending public venues or social gatherings are not proportionate to the health threat they pose and risk causing further mental health harm among children.

Exclusion rules for unvaccinated children in Victoria are the toughest in Australia, prohibiting them from going to public places including retail shops, cafes and restaurants, and triggering vigorous debate over whether the directives go too far.

Australian immunisation expert Margie Danchin said it was imperative children, who had endured prolonged lockdowns, were not harshly penalised by COVID-19 vaccine mandates for school, social or sporting activities.

“Kids have really suffered enough in the pandemic,” she said.

“When you start to impact these kids in terms of social interactions and sporting interactions, there is a risk you are just compounding the harm.”

Professor Danchin pointed to the rising rates of eating disorders, self-harm, depression and anxiety among young people reported during the pandemic.

Excluding unvaccinated young people can compound the impact of the pandemic, Associate Professor Margie Danchin says. CREDIT:LUIS ENRIQUE ASCUI

“We’re only just starting to appreciate the impact of lockdowns on children and it’s been profound,” she said. “There are other ways you can manage the risk without excluding a young person for not being vaccinated.”

While all Australian states and territories strongly encourage COVID-19 immunisation for those aged 12 to 15, none have so far put blanket bans on unvaccinated children and teenagers attending public venues.

The state that comes closest to Victoria’s strict vaccine exclusions is NSW. However, in NSW, children under 16 years of age who are not fully vaccinated can generally follow the rules for vaccinated people, as long as they attend certain business premises with a fully vaccinated member of their household.

This rule is expected to end on December 15. The Victorian government intends to extend its lockout of the unvaccinated throughout 2022.

Fiona Russell, a paediatrician specialising in epidemiology and vaccination, said vaccine mandates had played a role in encouraging the adult population in Victoria to be immunised against the virus to protect the wider community.

But she said excessively applying the same rules to young teens risked further amplifying the difficulties they had experienced during the pandemic, particularly the social and mental health implications.

”Children have suffered so much, they really should not be caught up in this,” Professor Russell said. “At no time should [coronavirus] vaccines be mandated for under-15s, that is my personal view.“

Professor Russell said while children could transmit the virus, the onus should be on parents and adults around them to be vaccinated.

“Children are coming back out of lockdown with social anxiety and all sorts of things,” she said. “They should feel supported and a part of society and not excluded in any way. That’s extremely important.”

Professor Russell said the focus should be on ensuring the Australian adult population was vaccinated and that test, trace, isolate and quarantine measures were up to scratch.

The Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases has also voiced its opposition, tweeting on Wednesday it did not support COVID-19 vaccine mandates for any child under 16 in Australia.

Asked about the scientific evidence around vaccine mandates for children, Professor Danchin said she believed the same result could be achieved through using face masks, social distancing and screening through regular testing.

“You can manage the risk and reduce disease transmission by other measures,” she said. “If that means that that child needs rapid antigen testing before they attend an indoor function or indoor game, you can manage the risk, without mandating that they’re excluded.”

 

Meanwhile, infectious diseases expert Robert Booy said holding young teenagers to the same vaccination rules as adults in Victoria was overreach, when children were at much less risk of serious illness and death from COVID-19.

Following heated backlash from Victorian principals and parents, who raised concerns that unvaccinated students faced being excluded from end-of-year milestone events, schoolchildren were given some reprieve from mandates on Monday.

Unvaccinated 12 to 15-year-olds are now free to attend camps, graduation ceremonies and school excursions including at swimming pools and adventure parks, as long as a teacher is present.

The three paediatricians interviewed by The Age were also strongly opposed to mandating vaccines for children aged 5 to 11.

Professor Booy urged caution on any rush to vaccinate primary school students against the virus, warning it might take months to know whether the risks of the coronavirus jab outweigh the benefits for young children.

About 3 million young children have been vaccinated against the virus in the United States and the University of Sydney professor said at least three weeks’ follow-up on these children was needed to be confident they were not reporting any adverse side effects.

As of Thursday, 93.6 per cent of Victorians aged 12 and over have now had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. In Victoria, more than 85.7 per cent of people aged 12 to 15 have received at least one dose and 77.1 per cent are fully vaccinated.

On Wednesday, public health experts said Victoria’s lockout of unvaccinated people should end when vaccine rates top 90 per cent, with some warning the threat of indefinitely banning people from cafes and cinemas is contributing to radicalisation.

 

Premier Daniel Andrews said earlier this week there were no immediate plans to mandate vaccinations for children aged between 5 and 11, however he could not rule this out entirely.

“It’s too early for us to be definitive about what it’ll mean for that age group,” he said.

The Age contacted the state government and asked what the current health advice was to support rules for exclusions for 12 to 15-year-olds in Victoria.

The government did not answer this question, however a spokeswoman said ensuring every age group was strongly vaccinated “made everybody safer”, particularly the elderly and immunocompromised.

“Vaccine requirements have seen Victoria become one of the most vaccinated and therefore safest places in the world,” she said. “We make no apology for ensuring as many young Victorians as possible are protected against serious illness and harm from COVID-19.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

‘We need to get this right’: Overzealous application of vax rules to kids has to stop

https://www.theage.com.au/national/we-need-to-get-this-right-overzealous-application-of-vax-rules-to-kids-has-to-stop-20211122-p59azi.html

On Sunday night, one of us got a frantic call from their 13-year-old daughter. She went to the local pizza restaurant with three of her friends. On arrival, she was asked to show her vaccination certificate. The problem was she had dropped her phone on the way to the restaurant, the screen cracked, and it wasn’t working. She was not able to show her vaccine status. All her friends were able to enter, but she was refused.

There are numerous other examples of social groups and organisations we know of overstepping the mark and applying vaccine requirements where they aren’t reasonable and are contrary to current public health orders. Year 10 and 12 formals excluding unvaccinated teenagers (even though they have all been in HSC exam rooms together in the last few weeks), families who refuse to see certain members at Christmas, friendship groups setting up a new online chat without the unvaccinated member and a 14-year-old who wasn’t allowed to train and compete in surf lifesaving events (he had one dose only).

For the next three weeks, children under 16 years of age in NSW who are not fully vaccinated can generally follow the rules for fully vaccinated people, so long as they attend certain business premises (other than critical retail premises) with a fully vaccinated member of their household. At the moment the rules state that they do not need to show vaccination evidence if they are accompanied by a fully vaccinated member of their household.

But some social, business and community groups are incorrectly applying the public health orders meant for adults (those over16 years old) to our younger teenagers. The concern is that they may continue to apply these restrictions after December 15 or when we reach 95 per cent double vaccinated, even though, at that point, proof of vaccination will no longer be required by public health orders and non-critical retail will reopen to all.

What is missing from this conversation is an assessment of risk. The fully vaccinated don’t have zero risk of being infected and transmitting the virus, and yet they have freedom of access. The unvaccinated have a much higher risk of becoming infected and transmitting the virus, but there are ways to mitigate this risk with frequent testing, use of masks and social distancing.

Requests to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID, especially to people who are vulnerable due to medical reasons or age, are reasonable but, with vaccinations at high levels, they can be managed without resorting to complete exclusion. Most of the examples above are low risk, especially outdoor activities where we know the transmission risk is lowest.

The divide between the vaccinated and unvaccinated has become harsh and is causing harm among family members, in friendship groups and workplaces. The unvaccinated are under attack and the question needs to be asked: Is this fair and reasonable?

As paediatricians, we strongly recommend vaccination, and we do everything we can to support vaccine acceptance, but there are many reasons why this doesn’t occur. To be applying these rules excessively to young teens is further compounding the difficulties they have had during the pandemic, especially for those who have endured long periods of lockdown and the associated social and mental health impacts.

Time will tell if exclusions continue to be applied by social groups and families contrary to public health orders after December 15. It is unlikely to be an issue for businesses and organised community groups who are expected to obey the rules and whose conduct can be formally challenged.

 

Concerns about including unvaccinated people in family gatherings or social groups may persist whatever the vaccine coverage, and we know transmission rates are highest in the household setting. But vaccinated people should not fear the unvaccinated. If restrictions continue to be applied over and above the governmental settings a divided society will ensue.

We need to get this right as we anticipate the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines to under 12-year-olds, most likely early in the new year. We do not want to see unvaccinated children unreasonably shut out of their social groups and activities. Kids have suffered enough during COVID-19, and it is imperative we don’t further damage their lives, but start to rebuild them.

Associate Professor Nicholas Wood is a senior lecturer in paediatrics and child health at the Children’s Hospital, Westmead. Associate Professor Margie Danchin is a paediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2021 at 11:29 AM, Ease the sheet. said:

Under this legislation, Issy would be sniffing bums and spewing his bullshit.

Some here are fine with that.

You forgot the part about laughing, mocking, quoting other bits of the Bible (stoning adulterers & prostituting your daughters, how many concubines can one own, slavery) et al that people like me would be tossing their way.

Don't mistake the fact that I think they can say their shit to in any way assume that I'm going to actually agree with it or give them any respect. I'm not.

I thoroughly enjoy it when they try to justify their bullshit using Biblical references, and I quote other bits back at them.

But - you be you. Because suppression works so well now doesn't it? I mean, it's got such a wonderful track record. Burning books and suppressing opinions you don't like is right up your alley.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You forgot the part about laughing, mocking, quoting other bits of the Bible (stoning adulterers & prostituting your daughters, how many concubines can one own, slavery) et al that people like me would be tossing their way.

Don't mistake the fact that I think they can say their shit to in any way assume that I'm going to actually agree with it or give them any respect. I'm not.

I thoroughly enjoy it when they try to justify their bullshit using Biblical references, and I quote other bits back at them.

But - you be you. Because suppression works so well now doesn't it? I mean, it's got such a wonderful track record. Burning books and suppressing opinions you don't like is right up your alley.

FKT

It's a fucking disgrace what happened to him. If he wants to believe in stupid stuff and preach it to stupid people, who should give a flying fuck. Boo hoo, we're all going to hell. 

The only reason he should have been booted would be if he brought his bible bashing ways to his work with a negative effect. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You forgot the part about laughing, mocking, quoting other bits of the Bible (stoning adulterers & prostituting your daughters, how many concubines can one own, slavery) et al that people like me would be tossing their way.

Don't mistake the fact that I think they can say their shit to in any way assume that I'm going to actually agree with it or give them any respect. I'm not.

I thoroughly enjoy it when they try to justify their bullshit using Biblical references, and I quote other bits back at them.

But - you be you. Because suppression works so well now doesn't it? I mean, it's got such a wonderful track record. Burning books and suppressing opinions you don't like is right up your alley.

FKT

You fail to understand the 2 reasons of this legislation.

1)

It's not to allow freedom of speech.

It's to allow freedom to discriminate.

 

2)

It's to not allow your rebuttal.

It's to allow freedom to spout shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

I told you before. You have too many wogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2021 at 5:14 PM, ShortForBob said:

Greek wogs or other?

Greeks are not wogs. In my experience Greek Australians are the least selfish people I know. I am talking about Sudanese and Lebo wogs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again.

Urgent genomic testing is underway to determine if infected passengers who arrived in Sydney from South Africa contracted the Omicron COVID-19 variant.

Key points:

  • The Omicron variant is considered hyper-infectious and may be resistant to vaccines
  • Infected passengers were transported to Special Health Accommodation (SHA)
  • Other passengers on the flight may be considered close contacts
 

Australian states and territories yesterday reinstated border rules in response to the new Omicron strain, which was first identified in southern Africa and has been detected in several countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) this week declared Omicron as a "variant of concern" due to its hyper-infectiousness and fears it could be resistant to vaccines.

NSW Health confirmed 14 passengers who arrived in Sydney yesterday are from one of the nine southern African countries of South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia, Eswatini, Malawi, and the Seychelles.

Testing on arrival identified two of these passengers who arrived on Qatar Airways QR908, Doha to Sydney, around 7pm last night contracted COVID-19.

LIVE UPDATES: Read our blog for the latest news on the COVID-19 pandemic

The passengers were transported to the Special Health Accommodation (SHA) where they will undergo 14 days of quarantine.

NSW Health said other passengers on the flight may be considered a close contact and will be contacted to get tested immediately, as well as isolate for two weeks.

Although fully vaccinated international arrivals were exempt from isolation upon arrival, the rules were yesterday tightened for travellers in nine African countries where the Omicron strain was first found.

No cases have been identified in NSW, but the new strain has been found in Hong Kong, Botswana, Italy, Belgium and Israel.

The federal government joined more than 20 nations in implementing measures to stop the spread of the variant.

It comes less than a month after NSW completely removed all quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated international arrivals.

Victoria and the ACT had followed suit, effectively opening the international border to half of the country from the start of November.

In response to Omicron concerns, however, any international arrivals into Victoria and NSW will now be required to self-isolate for at least 72 hours, regardless of vaccination status.

"The emergence of this new variant reinforces the critical importance of all fully vaccinated travellers who return from overseas complying with the NSW Health guidelines," NSW Health said in a statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friday.......Australia has no plans to restrict flights from South Africa.

Saturday.......Australia has suspended flights from nine southern African countries and closed its borders. Hunt; “The government had taken strong, swift, decisive and immediate actions, they’re taken on the best medical advice, we’ve taken action in the past. We’ve taken early action in the past. We are doing that again”.

Last week........Morrison; "I've had enough of governments "telling Australians what to do" and it is time for strict public health measures to be rolled back. "It's time for governments to step back and for Australians to take their lives back," he said.

Pinocchio's timing is impeccable :lol: 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

New arrivals have the Omicron.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/tavellers-test-positive-omicron-covid-sydney/100657076

 First Australian cases of Omicron COVID-19 strain confirmed in Sydney travellers from southern Africa, NSW Health says

NSW Health has confirmed two returned travellers have tested positive for the new Omicron COVID-19 variant in Sydney, making them the first known cases of the strain in Australia.

Key points:

  • The two positive cases are in isolation in the state's Special Health Accommodation
  • About 260 passengers and air crew on the flight are considered close contacts
  • NSW's Premier says we need to learn to live alongside the various strains
 

The two positive cases are in isolation in the state's Special Health Accommodation. 

Both people, who are fully vaccinated and were asymptomatic, arrived in Sydney from southern Africa on Saturday, November 27.

They are among 14 people who arrived on Qatar Airways QR908, Doha to Sydney, about 7pm.

The remaining 12 passengers from southern Africa are undertaking 14 days of hotel quarantine, also in the Special Health Accommodation.

NSW Health said about 260 passengers and air crew who were also on the flight are considered close contacts and have been directed to isolate for 14 days regardless of their test result. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2021 at 11:41 AM, Frakka said:

Pinocchio's timing is impeccable :lol: 

What is it about you lefties and Emojis? Do you know if there are any plans to start making some for adults as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2021 at 1:48 PM, The Dark Knight said:

It's a fucking disgrace what happened to him. If he wants to believe in stupid stuff and preach it to stupid people, who should give a flying fuck. Boo hoo, we're all going to hell. 

The only reason he should have been booted would be if he brought his bible bashing ways to his work with a negative effect. 

He deserved what he got. He only had his platform because of belonging to a national team and organisation.If he wants to post his anti–social views that are at odds with the organisation he works for, then he can do so as a private citizen.

On the other hand, if he's voluntarily working for an organisation that is at odds with his personal beliefs, then how deeply held are those beliefs? How many devout baptists work in breweries?

Being a very talented athlete doesn't give you a free pass to act like a dickhead, as plenty of players from other sports can attest (cricket and NRL having been in the limelight recently).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SHUT THE BORDERS!

Again

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-29/international-students-visas-omicron-delay-covid/100660200

The federal government has deferred Wednesday’s planned easing of border restrictions for international students and other eligible visa holders until December 15.

Key points:

  • The federal government says the pause is to allow time to get information on the new Omicron variant
  • Australia has confirmed five cases of the variant 
  • The borders remain open to Australian nationals 
 

The government says the temporary pause will allow it to gather further information about new Omicron variant of COVID-19.

The National Security Committee of cabinet made the decision today following medical advice from the Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly.

The government says the temporary pause will allow it to gather more intelligence about the Omicron variant, and whether it poses a greater threat than Delta.

Catch up on the main COVID-19 news from November 29 with a look back at our blog

Border still open to Australians  

Australia was due to reopen to international students, skilled migrants as well as humanitarian, working holiday maker and provisional family visa holders from December 1.

However, the National Security Committee on Monday evening decided to pause that step.

"The temporary pause will ensure Australia can gather the information we need to better understand the Omicron variant, including the efficacy of the vaccine, the range of illness, including if it may generate more mild symptoms, and the level of transmission," a statement said.

Australia's international border is closed to travellers except for fully vaccinated Australian citizens, permanent residents and their immediate family, as well as fully vaccinated "green lane" travellers from New Zealand and Singapore and limited exemptions.

The government has also delayed the reopening of travel with Japan and the Republic of Korea until December 15.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 8:30 PM, ShortForBob said:

SHUT THE BORDERS!

Again

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-29/international-students-visas-omicron-delay-covid/100660200

The federal government has deferred Wednesday’s planned easing of border restrictions for international students and other eligible visa holders until December 15.

Key points:

  • The federal government says the pause is to allow time to get information on the new Omicron variant
  • Australia has confirmed five cases of the variant 
  • The borders remain open to Australian nationals 
 

The government says the temporary pause will allow it to gather further information about new Omicron variant of COVID-19.

The National Security Committee of cabinet made the decision today following medical advice from the Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly.

The government says the temporary pause will allow it to gather more intelligence about the Omicron variant, and whether it poses a greater threat than Delta.

Catch up on the main COVID-19 news from November 29 with a look back at our blog

Border still open to Australians  

Australia was due to reopen to international students, skilled migrants as well as humanitarian, working holiday maker and provisional family visa holders from December 1.

However, the National Security Committee on Monday evening decided to pause that step.

"The temporary pause will ensure Australia can gather the information we need to better understand the Omicron variant, including the efficacy of the vaccine, the range of illness, including if it may generate more mild symptoms, and the level of transmission," a statement said.

Australia's international border is closed to travellers except for fully vaccinated Australian citizens, permanent residents and their immediate family, as well as fully vaccinated "green lane" travellers from New Zealand and Singapore and limited exemptions.

The government has also delayed the reopening of travel with Japan and the Republic of Korea until December 15.

And now it’s over to Jenny Woodward with the weather...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty obvious that Anna wants to shut the borders asap.  Its not for health reasons, but to keep Scomo out of Queensland so he cannot campaign for the the election.  McGown is in on it too in WA.  Then the glorious state of Danistan will also follow suite.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trt131 said:

Its pretty obvious that Anna wants to shut the borders asap.  Its not for health reasons, but to keep Scomo out of Queensland so he cannot campaign for the the election.  McGown is in on it too in WA.  Then the glorious state of Danistan will also follow suite.

Seems reasonable.

For his own safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tudge too.

Ms Miller alleged that in 2017, she drank heavily with Mr Tudge and he became angry when she answered a phone call early the next morning from his hotel room bed.

"It was about four in the morning and a morning media producer … was calling about the front-page story we'd lined up. I started to talk to her to arrange a time, but I was still half asleep," she said, reading a statement in Parliament House earlier today.

"Then I felt someone kicking me on the side of my hip and leg. As I tried to sit up in bed. It was the minister, he was furious, telling me to get the f*** out of his bed.

"He continued to kick me until I fell off the side of the bed and ended up on the floor. I searched around in the dark for my clothes [while] he was yelling at me that my phone had woken me up.

"He told me to get the f*** out of his room and make sure that no-one saw me."

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Israel Hands said:

Question for you Aussies this morning:  What is a boofhead?  

 stupid person who says or does stupid things particularly if their action endangers others.

ie someone that removes a safety device from machinery or takes 8 unrestrained kids out for a ride in his or her 5 seater car.  or 00seven.

And like most Australian perjoratives, it's often used as a term of genial affection. (Bastard, Cunt,Boofhead, Dill etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

 stupid person who says or does stupid things particularly if their action endangers others.

ie someone that removes a safety device from machinery or takes 8 unrestrained kids out for a ride in his or her 5 seater car.  or 00seven.

And like most Australian perjoratives, it's often used as a term of genial affection. (Bastard, Cunt,Boofhead, Dill etc.)

"Fuckwit" may be the closest analog in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, accnick said:

You guys are far more tolerant of boofheads than we are of fuckwits.

Nah - Meli is right. Calling someone a boofhead is tolerant and even affectionate. Whereas calling someone fuckwit means you really despise them. It's one of our few insults that actually have some venom in them.

People often call their dog a boofhead. But you'd be asking for a fight if you called someone's dog a fuckwit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Se7en said:

Nah - Meli is right. Calling someone a boofhead is tolerant and even affectionate. Whereas calling someone fuckwit means you really despise them. It's one of our few insults that actually have some venom in them.

People often call their dog a boofhead. But you'd be asking for a fight if you called someone's dog a fuckwit.

There is a definite cultural difference here. Americans generally use insult as insults, rather than terms of endearment.

I am sure there are exceptions.

How do Australians know if they are being insulted, or referred to in an endearing fashion? How can the person being referred to as a cunt know whether to shoot you, punch you, or hug you?

Do you do it to their face, or just behind their back? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think Australians as a rule have a more highly-developed sense of humor than Americans. We lack subtlety.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Se7en said:

Nah - Meli is right. Calling someone a boofhead is tolerant and even affectionate. Whereas calling someone fuckwit means you really despise them. It's one of our few insults that actually have some venom in them.

People often call their dog a boofhead. But you'd be asking for a fight if you called someone's dog a fuckwit.

My dog has just knocked over a 5 ltr container of Pool acid and I called her a fuckwit.

She didn't seem to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

My dog has just knocked over a 5 ltr container of Pool acid and I called her a fuckwit.

She didn't seem to mind.

Cause not, high as a kite from the chemicals. Did she mooo her agreement at you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, accnick said:

How do Australians know if they are being insulted, or referred to in an endearing fashion? How can the person being referred to as a cunt know whether to shoot you, punch you, or hug you?

Do you do it to their face, or just behind their back? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think Australians as a rule have a more highly-developed sense of humor than Americans. We lack subtlety.

Do you really need to hear the words to know if you are being insulted? Tone and expression.

Calling someone you don't know a fuckwit to their face is quite aggressive, but mostly folks don't talk behind folks backs all that often. It'd be like "Don't invite Easy Meli sailing, he's a fuckwit"

Nah - you septics would fit in just fine in QLD...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

 

How do Australians know if they are being insulted, or referred to in an endearing fashion? How can the person being referred to as a cunt know whether to shoot you, punch you, or hug you?

Do you do it to their face, or just behind their back? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think Australians as a rule have a more highly-developed sense of humor than Americans. We lack subtlety.

Context, tone and the relationship between the insulter and insultee.

We also don't tend to take our self image so seriously.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dark Knight said:

But a boofhead is likeable, which is not the case for those 3.

I don't know if we have a term for whiney bitch. Wuss would be closest.

But again, I'll call my kids a wuss when they get me to kill a cockroach for them. Maybe LB would know.

2 hours ago, accnick said:

"Fuckwit" may be the closest analog in the US.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

Tudge too.

Ms Miller alleged that in 2017, she drank heavily with Mr Tudge and he became angry when she answered a phone call early the next morning from his hotel room bed.

"It was about four in the morning and a morning media producer … was calling about the front-page story we'd lined up. I started to talk to her to arrange a time, but I was still half asleep," she said, reading a statement in Parliament House earlier today.

"Then I felt someone kicking me on the side of my hip and leg. As I tried to sit up in bed. It was the minister, he was furious, telling me to get the f*** out of his bed.

"He continued to kick me until I fell off the side of the bed and ended up on the floor. I searched around in the dark for my clothes [while] he was yelling at me that my phone had woken me up.

"He told me to get the f*** out of his room and make sure that no-one saw me."

What a brave girl to come forward even though it is nothing but her word against his. Apart from that bangin' a married guy behind his wife's back thing, she is a role model for all women. She doesn't even have to have her claims substantiated or proven in anyway to hit the speaking circuit. Look at Britany...

The woke believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty...apart from those raping white males of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And speaking of the woke media...

The Project’s Peter Helliar caught Covid from Kate Langbroek

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/the-projects-peter-helliar-caught-covid-from-kate-langbroek/news-story/44b0040f1aa5e166c51978f24b6a7aed

This is what happens when you try and have a token extreme righty to offset a panel of Champagne socialists. Having said that I hope Pete a swift and complete recovery. I hope Kate suffers terribly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

I miss Random. He was a good cunt.

I don't miss Jack Sparrow. He was a cunt.

This might help explain

 

TISM - I Might Be A Cunt, But I'm Not A Fucking Cunt 

TISM perform their classic single live at Homebake 1998. This is the only known live recording of the track, famously banned from every radio and music television show upon its initial release.

https://youtu.be/YuJEeAVWG4o

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

What a brave girl to come forward even though it is nothing but her word against his. Apart from that bangin' a married guy behind his wife's back thing, she is a role model for all women. She doesn't even have to have her claims substantiated or proven in anyway to hit the speaking circuit. Look at Britany...

The woke believe that everyone is innocent until proven guilty...apart from those raping white males of course.

Well it's only fair after 3000+ years.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"boof" .. yes it was short for boofhead .. was the nickname of the head aussie cricket coach a short while ago

( strange game very popular in the commonwealth countries )

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ShortForBob said:

Well it's only fair after 3000+ years.:rolleyes:

it took them that long to realize it was rape ?

 

hardly seems worth worrying about then does it

Link to post
Share on other sites