Jay Cee Ess,
The reason why this pandemic hasn't turned out as bad yet as was predicted was due to the travel restrictions. Just wait for the the coming Winter !

Thank you Thinkabit, I agree with your posts.

---

Dear Bronwyn,

Why must stopping the virus be an EITHER-OR situation?

I am vaccinated AND take a homeopathic remedy against the virus AND wear a [surgical] mask even where it is not mandated AND regularly use a disinfectant spray AND avoid going out anywhere when case numbers climb over a threshold. We need to do all we can to win this war against the virus, not just this or the other.

«Demonizing and excluding them will do little to minimize disease risk. All it will do is further divide and weaken us as a nation.»

Demonizing is surely wrong, but unless they already had the virus (which is the best form of vaccination) we should nicely ask unvaccinated people to stay at home so to allow the herd-immunity of the vaccinated to quench the virus.

The reason we should not demonize anyone, however, is because it is wrong to do so, because it hurts others, not because of the peculiar reason you provided. If your reasoning is correct, that demonizing would "further divide and weaken us as a nation", then that would actually constitute a tempting, positive reason to demonize the unvaccinated, yet I refuse: even while I would like to see this folly of "nation" weakened, the means are at least as important as the goals!

---

Dear Individual,

«In the interest of the Nation there is a moral obligation for vaccination.»

And as I just told Bronwyn, according to that logic, since I oppose that harmful concept of "Nation", I should also be opposing vaccination...
But no, I still support vaccination DESPITE it possibly serving the interests of nationalism: I do oppose both nationalism AND the virus!

«In my view there is no differing moral conviction that overrides the moral obligation for the health of all !»

Well, I can perceive of such situations where moral convictions override the public-health. However, that is only in theory, I can't presently see any conflict of the like.

Individual, the travel restrictions were only part players in the lack of the spread. Have you not noticed that apart from a handful of exceptions, it never spread beyond about 25 to 30 km from the CBD of each capital city? Oh, yes, a case turns up in Byron Bay or Noosa and infects no-one else. A butcher takes it home to a country town and works for several days and doesn't even infect his own family let alone any customers.
People travelled freely from those cities to country towns hundreds of kilometres away and no Covid followed them.
Natural forces including the country sun conspired to denature the virus before it could spread. People working and recreating outdoors failed to contract the virus when it was presented to them.
Read the text books for University Biology about viruses. Follow up the natural environment. Read the history of the spread in 1919 and compare the differences. The potential was there for it to hit almost every regional centre in country Australia, but it failed.
Science and engineering facts have been ignored in the scare campaigns. Look at who has died in all cases. Not one otherwise healthy person under the age of 50 has died of covid in Australia.

thinkabit,I have no argument with any of your post. I am not going to be vaccinated with this muck not only as I don't believe it is safe for anyone, but also after 3 heart attacks I would be at extra risk if I used the stuff.

I also don't mind a restriction on free medical treatment of the unvaccinated, but with one proviso. The restriction on the availability of other treatment options must be removed. I have obtained with much difficulty, my chosen treatment for this virus. However I did have one shipment of Ivomectin intercepted & confiscated at the boarder by customs. This action by government comes very close to murder in my opinion.

On the suggestion that unvaccinated are not allowed free medical treatment, I have a couple of questions. Just where do you draw the line. I personally have felt we should withdraw treatment from smokers & illegal drug & alcohol users, because it was their decision to endanger themselves, but then I have second thoughts.

Should we also not treat trail bike & horse event riders, sky divers, motor sport competitors, football players, & a host of other activities which produce a high level of injuries? These people endangered themselves more than those refusing the current vaccination for Covid 19, & do it of their own free will. Should the public pay for their medical requirements?

I have raced cars, ridden show jumpers, & sailed the oceans on my private yacht, although when ocean crossing I never reported my movements so I could not trigger one of those ridiculously expensive searches for a missing yacht. Was I entitled to medical treatment, more than some druggy? I really don't know the answer to that one. Can you differentiate who deserves free medical treatment among these?

Dear Hasbeen,

I have no problem with free medical treatments for anyone who asks for it. If they are willing to stoop as low, then let them have it, whatever their lifestyle.

My problem is that Australian law does not allow for any other option for those with sufficient dignity to support themselves, who are unwilling to beg the poor tax-payer for anything, begging from the poorest beggar of all, who is a trillion dollars in debt!

Due to the urgency I did have my vaccines, but I still insist on paying for them. I asked them time and again to find me a way to pay for my vaccines - but they refused: their "free" does not mean free, it means a humiliating and immoral ban on payment. Now I am left with no other choice but to "invent" some new income in my next tax-return, such that will finally allow me to pay for my vaccines, with interest.

Hasbeen: Just to clear, I not saying that ALL "free" government medical services should be withdrawn for the unvaxxed. But rather only treatment provided for those conditions arising from a covid infection. eg: If an unvaxxed person has a workplace accident and broke their arm they can still present at a public hospital to have it set right in plaster. I think you do understand this point but I'm repeating to make sure.

Ok, so regarding other types of injuries arising from some adult's deliberate choice to do (or not do something), eg: your example of playing a contact sport. For me, the concept should apply in general to these situations: ie., adults should be responsible for the cost of their treatment in case of injuries. You will find that mechanisms for this are already in place covering injuries in professional sports, because organised sport have insurance for injuries and the like.
As another example, I live in SE Qld and we have mountains in the Scenic Rim and on the Sunshine Coast that people climb. (If I'm not mistaken you also live in SE Qld near/at the scenic rim and thus would be familiar with these mountains). Quite often people get stuck/run into difficulty climbing these mountains and need to be rescued. And this requires a rescue operation which most likely runs into the thousands of dollars (that's my guess at the cost it may even be more if it requires a helicopter or such). In this scenario of someone climbing one of these mountains it is my opinion that either:
1) they're rich enough to pay out right for any rescue (eg: this could be formally arranged by having them deposit a bond to cover the costs with the rescue services before they go climbing), or
2) or they take out insurance to cover it, or
3) they do it under the direction of someone who contracts to be responsible for them (eg: an experienced guide/instructor) and that guide has the wherewithal to cover it (either directly or though insurance)

-- continued below --