Hasbeen:

When above I addressed GY’s argument that I have taken as core value viz, a vaccine mandate which restricts movement and freedoms without the vaccine, I exclude any argument but freedom of the individual over the greater good of society..AND who decides on that particular outcome.

So the question is; who has the power to formulate the rule which restricts the liberties of the individual for the broader good of society.

That argument is irrelevant to the other concern you raise, about the veracity or usefulness of the vaccine.

I have a decision myself, based on long conversations over dinner with a cardiac specialist.
It draws different conclusions to your own.

Yuyutsu:
All societies are governed by rules. The necessity of those rules are obvious.
I’m puzzled by your hostility against rules and norms of society, formulated on the most part, for a peaceful and productive future.

Dan

Dan I have read widely, & had a serious discussion with my doctor, who is not a cardiologist, but has studied the questions.

He told me he would not try to convince me. That he had the jab himself, but had not given it to his mother, as he did not like the choice offered us oldies.

I have all the discussed antivirals, & we are dosed up zinc & D. I doubt we will become infected, avoiding large gatherings, but we do go to chemists & doctors, probably the most dangerous place other than a hospital or a protest. We will be sure to self isolate if we start having symptoms, & follow doctors suggestions with antivirals.

I doubt we are likely to threaten Armchair Critic, so he is probably safe with his vaccine.

AC wrote: "What part of that statement makes you think I want you to get the vaccine?"

Nothing. It was your earlier comment, before you started to obfuscate to hide your hypocrisy. Viz..."You disgust me. You people oppose the vaccines".

But I see that pointing out your lack of intellectual consistency is triggering so I'll vex you no longer.

Hasbeen wrote:
" I would agree with you if these so called vaccines actually worked."

I don't think the efficacy of the vaccine is the issue. It cannot be denied that there is an element of risk in getting the vaccine and, whatismore, the risk differs by individual. As such the question as to whether to take it or not, must be up to the individual if we have any asperations to being a liberal democracy. Allowing people in far off locales to make and enforce the decision is simply unacceptable.

Dear Dan,

«All societies are governed by rules. The necessity of those rules are obvious.
I’m puzzled by your hostility against rules and norms of society, formulated on the most part, for a peaceful and productive future.»

I did not oppose rules WITHIN a society.
What I oppose is the forcing of people, involuntarily to participate in a society or to be counted as "members" thereof.

Once a society is entered into voluntarily, I have no problem with that society having its internal rules/norms FOR ITS MEMBERS who are there of their free choice.

Hasbeen

I’ve tried to stay away from the argument of the vaccine.

But firstly the Covid itself needs consideration. From that point a more rational decision can be made towards the vaccine.

Covid:
Statistics confirm the cause of death from Covid lies roughly shared between respiratory
failure and blood clots.
The blood clots are formed by the bodies own coagulating defence, a natural process designed to plug up damage from a wound.

It’s this mechanism, activated as a response to the virus, which confuses the bodies defences. and overreacts, effectively turning blood into a thick coagulating sludge which shuts down vital organs by starving the blood supply through the clotting process.

The vaccine appears not to be working with the Delta strain of Covid, and it is true, it’s not as effective against it since, like the flue injections, it needs to be reengineered to recognise the variants as they appear.
There is nothing surprising going on here. It’s simply a logistical nightmare to keep abreast of the ramifications.

The lockdowns are the only true defensive position pending the vaccines catching up to the variants.

Your best advice is to have the vaccine, which will give your body some defence against it, then keep up with the variant vaccines as and when they become available.
And that on top of what your already doing, isolate etc.

Dan

Kerry Chant says she wants 90% vaccination, I think they'll have to make it mandatory to get there.
And they might, you know why?
Because they already know from whats happened in Israel that 80% isn't going to cut it.
They might just be lying to get everyone to vaccinate, and then they'll shift the goalposts, again and again.
- And they may even know that this is exactly what they plan to do.
- Because if they don't people might just give up right now, and all hell will break loose.
- Also politically Gladys has to at least look like she's on top of things, and Scomo also has to suck up to NSW as well.
They're all in cahoots for themselves.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-27/how-australia-could-become-world-most-covid-vaccinated-country/100410504

I actually support Hasbeen's point of view in regards to Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, Prednisone;
All of those so called anti-virals if any of them are of use.
If any of these things can help you in the event of catching Covid or Delta then why are they being denied to us?
- Is it not the same bullcrap as denying cancer patients cbd oil?
- Some stupid bureaucratic idea that stands between peoples best interests in their own health?

Tasmanian Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein reserved the right to stay closed at 90%
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-04/tasmania-covid-roadmap-border-reopening-vaccination-rate/100431784

SA Liberal Premier Steven Marshall on Thursday said "very different, nuanced arrangements" would be put in place "as we get up to that 80% level".

>>"What I mean by that is, rather than locking down an entire state, we can move down to identifying and isolating those areas in each state where there may be a cluster,"<<

The government wants to pick on WA and QLD (Labor) for wanting to stay free from infection, but it's no different from Tasmanian Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein's position.

Our Premier owes nothing to the people in other states.
In we had a state referendum in QLD today asking 'Should we open the borders?' what do you think the response would be?

'HELL NO!'

Palaszczuk will pay a huge price if she opens borders.