Has been

Australia is now so completely over it.

We were supposed to have 150,000 deaths according to data afforded to Government.

Well we didn't, and those 101 victims continue to be acknowledged.

All borders should be opened for trade and tourism - under clear medical advice.

Borders should be opened with "continued use of social distancing" being adhered to.

I and many Australians are "incensed" by China's agent in Australia - stating that any enquiry into origins of virus being "disrespectful" as to their Government.

As an Australian - with the support of ALL Australians.

1. A virus originated in Wuhan China ….. which engulfed the world.

2. So China believe that any "independent" inquiry into such origins by Australian Government is "offensive" to China.

3. Aussies say - WE WON'T BE BULLIED by anyone.

Aussies totally support our Government actions.

SAINTS, "We were supposed to have 150,000 deaths according to data afforded to Government." Not so, have you heard of worst case scenario, that's what you are referring to. The fact decisive action by government in Australia has so far limited the death toll to just over 100, seems to disappoint some people.

Then there is the; "So China believe that any "independent" inquiry into such origins by Australian Government is "offensive" to China" No, the Australian Government never proposed an investigation conducted by itself into the virus. China supported, unlike the Trump Administration, an independent investigation. China was rightly concerned that the original Australian proposal seemed to be at the urging of the Americans, a political witch hunt. Would Trump agree to the Chinese government conducting an "independent" investigation into the protests in America, I think not, even if China proposed such a thing. The Americans might think such an investigation could be biased.

How dare anyone to declare that their "freedom" to make money trumps everyone else's personal freedoms?

Each and every community ought to determine its priorities for itself and indeed certain states and territories determined that it is more important for them to eliminate the virus, let alone for avoiding the disease itself, in order to regain their freedoms sooner to do all the normal things that people do, including even to hug and shake hands - more important than just the ability to make money. What right have outsiders to dictate their priorities to them?

Sadly this was only done at state-level: each district, county, town or village ought to have this same ability, if so they choose, to close/restrict its borders so they are able to live in an unrestricted virus-free environment within.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Sometimes I agree with you, and sometimes not. Define "outsiders", that could be anyone not of this world, or it could be anyone who is not me. You said; "Sadly this was only done at state-level: each district, county, town or village ought to have this same ability", why should the village have authority over the individual? Why can't I kill my neighbour? My rights as an individual superseded all others rights, although just as I should have the right to kill the neighbour, then he should equally have the right to kill me. Once you place any restriction on the individuals right, for any reason, then you diminish the rights of that individual. Give nothing is above the rights of the individual, then no right should be denied. Agree?

Dear Paul,

You made a very good point, but the situation in a pandemic is somewhat more intricate from a moral point of view and probably not that black-and-white.

I will be happy to discuss the overall picture of freedoms and rights in a pandemic situation, but this would take longer to cover and what I presented here was only a limited argument. That individual freedoms trump the rights of others, is an absolute argument, but my argument here was only a relative one:

Given that, rightly or wrongly, larger groups of people (state, district, county, town, village) ALREADY severely limit the individual freedoms of those within its "jurisdiction", prohibiting them to visit family, to hug their friends, to exercise at the gym, to eat out, to pray together, to receive elective surgery and personal treatments, etc., etc., then surely they may (and in my view ought to) prohibit those OUTSIDE their "jurisdiction" from entering their community and bringing their virus with them SO THAT they be able to remove their internal restrictions sooner. This should be a lesser evil.