People are going broke.
ttbn,
That's why I stated very early into this that Public servants on secure incomes should pay a levy of a few Dollars from their salary towards helping those who are losing their income.
The more they earn the more they can afford those who really need. In fact everyone who is not losing income should contribute including Pensioners & Superannuation recipients & Politicians in particular.
I have long said we need a lottery for those losing a job. It would be a morale booster & an actual & real benefit to for society if people can win an income for life. Economically it'd be a winner for the nation.

AC,

Yes I get it. You "don't want...the vaccines" but are dirty on "people [who] oppose the vaccines". So everyone else should be vaccinated so you can avoid it.

Not quite the highest ideals of altruism there.

___________________________________________________

individual,

Yep. At least part of the problem in my view is that the people making these decisions aren't really affected by them. They remain employed and they continue their lives. Those around them, their staff and their employees remain employed . Indeed for many of them, the lockdowns have improved their lives both financially and in terms of life-style, being able to work from home. Gladys is big on saying she hasn't seen her parents for ages as though that means she understands the travails that those most affected are going through.

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." Thomas Sowell

GY
Greetings.

I understand your frustration.

There is one issue you wish to highlight, that of compulsory vaccination, but to do so, you have overplayed it with the issue of efficacy of the vaccine.

That has set off the.dog pack in all directions.

I hesitate to use the word, but we have in front of us a philosophical argument on which trumps what; the personal benefit to self, or the greater good of society.
I’ve consulted with Plato, the most understandable of philosophers and on a generic level of understanding.
I believe he puts your argument in the context of Justice V Injustice.

You attempt to prove your own bias to the test, by conflating the issue with a perceived failure of the vaccines to ameliorate the effects of the COVID disease.

I think your best advised to extract that argument from the mix, if you wish for a more legitimate conclusion.

I think the question should read; Is there evidence that all of society must conform to the rules governed by others seperate from the individual?
Answer yes.

It is the job of the politicians to formulate rules: it is the obligation of the individual to follow them.
All of history is written with this black ink.

Free speech gives the individual the rights to speak against the rule, but not the right to follow actively against it.
The result of the latter is anarchy.

Dan

Dear Dan,

«I think the question should read; Is there evidence that all of society must conform to the rules governed by others seperate from the individual?
Answer yes.»

This indeed would be the case if/when participation in this group of people called "society" and accepting its constitution was voluntary and without duress - not just because one happens to have a human body with one's feet walking the face of this God-given earth.

Otherwise imposing rules is sheer violence - and everyone could define "society" to be whatever suits their hunger for power.

One may not, of course, eat the cake and have it too, ask a society for privileges (beyond one's natural freedom) but not accept its restrictions.

Dan I would agree with you if these so called vaccines actually worked. However we have huge proof they do not do what vaccines as we know them actually do. Israel has amply proved this.

Then we have India where the use of antivirals has stopped the death rates, in the states where it was given out, more dramatically than the vaccines in Israel.

With the current manufacturers indemnified stuff, rushed to market, there is a definite immediate death rate, & a total lack of knowledge of what long term problems may result. Mixed with the denigration of antiviral approach, proven in the control of AIDS, there is just too much smoke for there not to be some fire involved in the government approach.

I know the deep lefties will shut their eyes to avoid seeing the problem of dictator Dan & the others, but I can not believe you can't see this.

mhaze,
That doesn't make any sense at all;
I said quote:
"I don't give a crap if you take the stupid vaccine or not, ok, it's your choice.
I do care if you want the freedom to spread the shite around so I'm forced to have it, you imbecile."

What part of that statement makes you think I want you to get the vaccine?

Obviously I respect free choice to have or not have it;
And I recognise that some people weigh up the risks of one or the other;
To potentially get delta whilst unvaccinated, or take the vaccine.
I don't begrudge anyone's choice, it's theirs to make.

The part you don't get is the hypocrisy you display.
You don't want the vaccine, that's fine - free choice.

But then you want freedom of movement and freedom from masks, check-ins, lockdowns, lockouts etc.
- Which equates to 'freedom to spread the virus' - AND RESULTS IN
Everyone else being put in the position to have to either take the vaccine for when delta continues to spread, or get delta unvacinnated;
And heaps dying or hospitalised nonetheless.

Either way you want to spread the virus to others because you're sick of the lockdowns.

Your state stuffed it for themselves.
Why should everyone else's states have to pay?
Your states should take their medicine.
Our states should be free from the results of your states failure to suppress the virus.

Your position is one that you don't want to be put out by covid restrictions;
Which means you don't give a crap if others die by the virus spread..
It's people with an attitude like yours that got us to this point.

Now you think I'm heartless, Alan B points out people are losing everything and committing suicide.
Well I've got to rationally weigh that up don't I?

Should I feel MORE sorry for the one who CHOOSES to top themself because of restrictions?
Or MORE sorry for the one who DOESN'T HAVE A CHOICE and dies because you don't like restrictions?
- That your state and leaders brought on itself?