Australian politicians and media (for they are in agreement on all things) have engaged the Nudge Department to convince us to get vaccinated.
One of the pieces of rhetoric is a future where so-called vaccine passports will enable a bio-security state of Apartheid. “Get doubled jabbed and you can go to the pub, otherwise it’s drinking alone with home delivery beer for you people on the naughty step”.
It’s highly likely this will be challenged through the courts soon. What might the government defence be, do we think?
There’s possibly two lines of defence here:
Firstly, that the unvaccinated are risking others’ health by spreading the virus.
Secondly, that the unvaccinated are at too great a risk of the virus so must be excluded for their own health.
I can’t think of a third defence, but if you can, please add it in the comments.
Point two is the weaker reason, protecting people who are personally at risk of injury by a virus has no legal precedent, otherwise we would have laws banning dangerous sports, excessive drinking, consuming sugar, or preventing people with heart conditions from jogging. People take their own risks in life, or at least that’s how it worked in 2019.
The first defence seems to be the key reason for the segregation by vaccine status. How might our plaintiff counter this?
Perhaps by printing a copy of this CDC report from August 26th (highlight, mine):
Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time: For prior variants, lower amounts of viral genetic material were found in samples taken from fully vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections than from unvaccinated people with COVID-19. For people infected with the Delta variant, similar amounts of viral genetic material have been found among both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people. However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
In plain English; Vaccinated people are as likely to transmit the Delta variant as unvaccinated people.
What about the suggestion they remain infectious for longer? The report has several sources linked at the bottom of the article. I challenge you to find any information in those studies supporting the that statement. I couldn’t.
I’m certain the minor talents and over promoted bureaucrats who are State Premiers and Chief Health Officers will push ahead with the next upgrade of the phone app to include vaccine status. The sunk cost fallacy applies in both money and political capital expenditure.
There will also be several legal challenges as soon as it is launched.
The case should be straightforward to decide; does not having the vaccine offer the general public any greater risk of transmission? The CDC says no.
Of course, in this “late stage democracy” world, trust in institutions has collapsed. We know we can’t trust politicians, we know we can’t trust the media, we will soon learn whether we should still trust the legal system.
Because of a few songs wherein I spoke of their mystery, women have been exceptionally kind to my old age. Leonard Cohen.
That quote has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this post, I just like it and it commences with “because”.
Conspiracy theorists always look for the “because”. It’s human nature to try to make sense of situations, particularly if they are causing you pain, suffering and anxiety.
It’s a fool’s errand though. The chances of someone affected by an externality to correctly guess the sequence of events leading to it are extremely unlikely.
What probably matters more is correctly observing all the pertinent facts about the present and drawing reasonable conclusions about how they might change in the future.
Some observable facts, then.
Using public health as the justification, despite 18 months of data showing it was, at a population level, a mid-severity flu and is now (with vaccines, regardless of what you may think about their safety), a very mild flu, the following changes have occurred:
- International and domestic border closures,
- Legislation and heavy-handed policing restricting freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of association,
- Curfews and military presence in suburban areas,
- Legislation mandating quarantine of healthy individuals on the suspicion of infection,
- Legislation mandating vaccinations for certain professions,
- Closures of schools, replaced by very sub-optimal online lessons,
- Vaccination of children against a virus that poses little threat to them,
- Restriction of travel on several major airlines to those with proof of vaccination,
- International airfares, for those allowed to travel, outside the budget of most people,
- Unprecedented (there’s a word for our time!) government borrowing and economic stimulus, in the form of direct payments to business and individuals. In many cases, the government cheque is greater than the wage it replaced,
- In those countries that have lifted some of the legislated restrictions above, the powers to re-impose them have been retained (the UK, for example).
That’s Australia today.
How might these situations change, do we think?
Borders will reopen and flights resume, but not for the plebeians for a very long time. The competition in international air travel drove prices down to a level where a middle class family could leave Australia once every second or third year. That’s not going to happen again for perhaps a decade. You’ll need a vaccination passport too.
Legislation restricting freedom of movement, trade and association will remain on the books, the powers to arbitrarily invoke the laws will be retained and used based on “cases” or new variants. Look at the decades old laws against terrorism for precedent.
Governments will not be tempted in the slightest to turn off the stimulus fire hoses. The creative destruction of free markets will be seen as a sign of policy failure. Universal Basic Income by another name will be here to stay.
Schools will re-open and close again several times based on “cases”. Masks for school kids, perhaps mandatory vaccinations too. Teachers’ unions will make demands for “safety” usually resulting in pay rises. The quality of the outcomes for pupils will be a distant footnote printed in tiny font.
Court cases will be brought by employees fired over vaccinations. They might win, they might not.
Don’t look for the because. You’ll drive yourself mad.
On the news every night, some idiot financial journalist will tell you “markets rose 17 points today because of new employment data”, or “fell because of new inflation data”.
Unprovable. All we can prove is markets rose or fell.
Similarly, we can’t be certain about the because of the situation we are living in now.
We can make reasonable extrapolations such as those I’ve offered above, though.
What to do then?
Here’s some suggestions:
- Find a doctor who will give you a vaccine exemption. It might be accepted by employers, airlines, restaurants and governments for a while,
- If you are eligible for a passport from another country, apply. Having options is wise. Ask any American male with a Canadian passport during the Vietnam draft era.
- Consider alternative education models for your children. Take control of their curriculum and hire tutors. If you stay within the current system, focus them on what matters only. STEM.
- Spread your assets across jurisdictions. Be nimble.
- Perhaps move away from major population centres, if these are where all the police and army presence is focused.
- Learn to sail. If you one day find it necessary to steal a yacht from the harbour and sail away, having the skills learned in the Day Skipper qualification would be important.
It’s all a bit tin foil hat, isn’t it?
But then, imagine a conversation between your 2019 self and your present day self.
Of course, once we’ve moved to Central Bank Digital Currencies, there will be nowhere left to hide anyway.
So enjoy your current freedoms.
Another year for me and you, another year with nuthin to do. (Apologies to The Stooges).
The previous post here attracted some interesting and thought provoking comments. One in particular (thanks Tom) prompted a journey to this Wikipedia page.
The “10 stages of genocide” were developed by Gregory Stanton of the US State Department in the late 1980s as a conceptual model for analyzing the processes of genocide, and for determining preventive measures that might be taken to combat or stop each process.
Of course, it could be used as a roadmap too, if you were that way inclined:
Stage One. Classification. People are divided into “them and us”.
Those who choose to take a vaccine. Those who decline it.
Stage Two. Symbolization “When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups…”
Stage Three. Discrimination “Law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights: segregation or apartheid laws, denial of voting rights”.
Commencing this month, residents of New South Wales who have not received two doses of vaccine will be unable to dine in restaurants, have a haircut, meet other people or leave their homes while those with the vaccine will be allowed these “freedoms”.
Stage Four. Dehumanization “One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.”
Consider the language used by the President of the United States, directed at the approximately 41% of the population who have so far declined a vaccine. It’s a stretch to describe frustrated and run out of patience as dehumanising but it is unusual language for an elected official to be using to describe the people who voted for him (there may be a clue here, more on this later).
Stage Five. Organisation “Genocide is always organized… Special army units or militias are often trained and armed…”.
The army is on the streets of Western Sydney. Sure, they’re not rounding people up but let’s remember the context; we now have to accept a military presence ostensibly to protect us from a respiratory virus with a less than 1% infection fatality rate.
Stage Six. Polarization “Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda…”
Consider this comedy sketch parodying a TV advert for the major DIY retailer in Australia. This was created and broadcast by the state broadcaster, The ABC. It conflates those who are hesitant about their personal risks with a new vaccine with those who believe the earth is flat.
Stage Seven. Preparation “Mass killing is planned. Victims are identified and separated because of their ethnic or religious identity…”
Presumably this is a stage one doesn’t get to learn about until after the fact.
The remaining stages are when the real fun starts.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe there’s a secret cabal of Illuminati planning genocide or a new world order.
I do believe there’s a direction events are travelling, however.
A population who have been made fearful can be easily persuaded to accept otherwise not credible positions. “The unvaccinated are putting me at risk”, for example. It is unclear how this statement can be correct.
Once that position has been accepted, mandated vaccinations, exclusion from services and society, and a range of extremely distasteful and frightening subsequent laws can be justified.
Biden’s vaccine mandate announcement is, in my view, a declaration of civil war.
It’s clear that there is a massive correlation across the groups who are hesitant about the vaccines, those who most enthusiastically supported Trump, those who enjoy their Second Amendment rights and those who would never vote Democrat.
The polarisation of the population is undeniable. It’s deliberate and has been undertaken consciously.
Australia is at different stages of the Ten Steps and, as Stanton stated, these steps are not linear.
I don’t believe a quick reversal of this direction is likely. Fear is a very powerful motivator at a population level.
If you concur with this assessment, the next question to answer is, what will you do about it?
Imagine you were the supreme leader of a dictatorial superpower country, currently engaged in a de facto but undeclared cold, sometimes warm, war with another superpower and its allies.
One day, a trusted deputy brings you a plan which would result in massive disruption to the society of your enemy, dividing its population, driving a wedge between friends and families, weakening societal trust and inducing huge levels of fear in day to day interactions.
An added bonus of this fiendish plan is it would utterly ruin their economy, sending them into a series of recessions and economic slowdowns.
One assumes, as it’s highly unlikely a moral actor would have ever made it to the top job in a dictatorship, you are a sociopath or at least have sociopathic tendencies. Therefore, this awful plan would be given some consideration, you’d want to hear more about it, you may be very tempted by it.
Completely unrelated to this hypothetical scenario:
Last year, in the early days of the pandemic, pictures and video footage were broadcast around the world, showing people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan. This one for example:
New hospitals were built in days, to both the shock and awe of international observers.
Stories emerged of mass cremations, perhaps up to 50,000 dead within the first two months of the outbreak.
They were never needed. The UK’s “Nightingale” hospitals treated just 54 patients before being closed down and converted into vaccination hubs.
What if there was an element of deliberate misdirection and mendacity in the initial reports coming out of China in early 2020?
With the luxury of hindsight, many of those photos and videos seem a lot less believable than they did when we were all shitting our pants in fear in February last year. Several of those “man falls down dead in Wuhan” stories and footage look somewhat suspicious today. Do an internet search and have a look for yourself, ask yourself how credible they look now?
We have also since learned this was not a naturally-mutated virus, but likely to have had its evolution helped along in a laboratory in Wuhan.
So, what just happened?
What happened to us, what did we just put ourselves through to protect ourselves from a disease we now know has a infection fatality rate well below 1%, making it less deadly than several recent iterations of the seasonal influenza?
My nascent hypothesis is this; once the Chinese authorities realised they had a leak from the Wuhan laboratory, they made a decision to not let a good crisis go to waste.
It didn’t require the virus to be deliberately created or leaked but, once it was out there, a little elaborate kayfabe was all that was required to send their enemies into a hugely damaging state of national panic.
Of course, this is just another conspiracy theory written on a minuscule blog in a brackish internet backwater.
However, even if there’s not a shred of truth in this theory, everyone in the world, good faith actors and bad, have just learned it is possible in the future. A bad virus, correctly publicised, will result in most nations’ governments destroying economies and freedoms previously thought to be ancient and sacrosanct.
With that fact now known, what can we in what we still laughingly call the free world do to prevent this provoked self-harm happening again in the future?
Some possible solutions I can think of are listed below, perhaps you can think of others:
- When a new deadly virus emerges, call a referendum to put the solution to the populace, “do you want an enforced lockdown or would you prefer support to take your own personal risk mitigation?”
- Call a general election, assuming there’s a difference of policy between the major parties (sadly, generally there wasn’t; we have unaparties in most countries).
- In advance, publish a national policy based on differing infection fatality rates. For example, “we will never close our borders and prevent people going about their lives for a disease that kills no more than, say, 0.5% of those it infects and certainly not if the average age of fatality from the disease is greater than the average age of death in a normal year”.
- Stop electing career politicians with no courage, imagination or real world experience.
- Pass legislation requiring all journalists to have achieved a high school level of competency in mathematics and statistical analysis.
Regardless, well played President Xi. Well played sir.
(Hat tip, Ezra Levant’s recent podcast on “feelings”)
Australia is going to start vaccinating 12 year olds.
The UK will be vaccinating the same age group, most likely when they return to school next month. For the purposes of consent, 12 year olds have been deemed to have Gillick Competence, so are judged legally able to agree without their parents’ knowledge (for details on this plan, listen to the Daily Telegraph Planet Normal 26th August podcast from the 10 minute mark).
I will attempt to “steel man” the argument in favour of vaccinating 12 year olds.:
Argument 1 – this will protect the young from serious harm from the virus.
Argument 2 – this will increase the wider community safety through reduced transmission.
I believe I have repeated in good faith the two main arguments for the policy.
What’s the data say?
Argument 1 doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. CDC data summarised by the Spectator here shows a 0.002% chance of kids dying from the virus. That’s significantly lower than the regular seasonal flu, against which we don’t currently vaccinate kids.
Argument 2 relies on an incorrect assumption the vaccines prevent, or at least massively reduce transmission. This is not borne out by data from heavily vaccinated countries.
Israel, for example:
They know of this data, of course they do. It’s freely available and reported by reputable media and government departments.
Yet they are forging ahead with the unethical and pointless policy of vaccinating young people with minimum risk from the virus in the false promise it will protect the elderly. As Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford Vaccine Group states, herd immunity is not possible.
One can now only conclude this is a tragic example of the Banality of Evil.
We are now living in the terrifying reality of the bio-security Fascistic state.
Day one of the ridiculous mandatory outdoor mask law in New South Wales.
An equally unscientific poll whilst driving around the local area suggests two thirds of the population don’t know about the new law or know about it and are ignoring it for the petty authoritarianism it is.
Mick Fuller and Gladys Berejiklian, it’s your move.
There must be nothing quite as terrifying for a State Premier and a Chief of Police than going through the process of creating a new law, publicising it and then trying to police it only to be met with the collective middle fingers of two thirds of the citizens.
What would you do at that point? A blitz of fines? Apologise and repeal it?
On balance, I think I’d try for a face-saving approach; “The medical advice has changed and we’re always following der science, innit”.
There is long tradition in England of the concept of “policing by consent”. How long a tradition? It was documented by the founder of the modern police force, Sir Robert Peel in 1829. The nine principles describe how a police force can be accepted by the public only if they understand the concept of “policing by consent”.
The corollary of this is losing the support of the public and having to choose between political orders or the public will.
It would seem this choice is rapidly approaching Mick Fuller, the Commissioner of the NSW police force.
In the last two weeks he has demanded additional, unprecedented powers….which were granted within the day. He has also informed his staff he will be taking no disciplinary action should they be over-zealous in their interpretation of these authoritarian powers.
That’s nice. More powers, fewer controls, checks and balances. Accountability is clearly not a priority. Who wouldn’t want a job description like that?
This weekend, however, things have been kicking off a little. A violent protest in Sydney yesterday and, today, a pop up protest on the border with Queen’sland. I particularly enjoyed the report of the protestor asking the police who they thought they worked for.
All this is just before the new law kicks in requiring people to wear masks outside. What percentage of the population is going to ignore that unscientific restriction, do we think? Not insignificant, I suspect.
That will pose a conundrum for Mick. Quite how many arrests and fines will he and his police force be prepared to hand out before it becomes apparent they’ve lost the consent of the public?
If you’re not policing by consent, what type of police force are you, Mick? For a clue, have a look at some of the shittier places in the world, particularly the ones with the colour green on their flag.
The case count in the two major states of Australia are growing greater by the day. New South Wales will hit 1,000 a day by the end of next week.
Let me repeat that, good. It’s great news.
Why? Because the faster this outbreak gets out of reach of the authoritarians and petty rule makers, the sooner they will be forced to come to terms with the concept of trade offs and individual risk management.
We are in desperate need of some light relief in these scary times at the end of the western experiment with civilisation.
Watching mediocre career politicians such as Dan Andrews, Gladys Berejiklian, Scott Morrison et al having to come face to face with their failed strategies and brutal tactics is going to be a very pleasant diversion over the next few weeks.
As for Mick Fuller, Sir Robert Peel is turning in his grave.
Famously, this question was Jeremy Paxman’s inspiration when he had to interview politicians.
It’s a great starting point, regardless of jurisdiction or political hue.
For example, this statement today by NSW’s Chief Health Officer, Dr Kerry Chant (bold highlighting mine):
“Vaccination is part of the solution. It helps us because if the person is vaccinated, there is less chance that they get the disease particularly if they have had two doses. And therefore, it means are less likely to pass it to others. And also less likely to need hospital care and admission to intensive care.”
Mandatory wearing of face masks outdoors is another questionable imposition.
According to the USA’s CDC, there’s little to no evidence of outdoor transmission.
While we’re referencing the CDC, what do they say about the evidence of transmission from surface contact? You know, the reason behind all the billions of gallons of hand sanitiser being poured in to the water cycle?
In their own report, it’s low risk. If the CDC state it’s low risk, I think it’s a safe assumption the chances of catching it from a door knob or shopping trolley handle are trending close to zero.
We could devote pages of this blog to listing all the statements made during this epoch of incredulity we now know to be lies; quarantine is racist, masks don’t work, it didn’t leak from a lab, flatten the curve, herd immunity, lockdowns work, vaccine passports won’t be required, vaccines won’t be mandated, etc.
The laundry list of lies is not really the point, is it?
The question we aren’t seeing anyone in the media ask is why the fuck are we still listening to these liars?
Never before in the history of humankind has The Gell Mann Amnesia Effect done so much heavy lifting.
We learn almost daily that we’ve been lied to and yet, the following day, we unquestioningly accept more statements as fact from the very same lying liars.
Fool me one time, shame on you. Fool me two times, shame on me.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Well, that escalated quickly. The army are “assisting” with enforcing compliance of the increasingly authoritarian laws in Sydney.
In addition, helicopters are flying around western Sydney with sirens and loud hailers to “encourage” people to stay indoors and certainly not protest against these impositions.
The laws around this current lockdown have been strengthened and extended.
What type of laws? How about wearing a mask even when outdoors?
I’m sure there’s solid scientific evidence behind that massive dilution of civil liberties, it’s just not been presented yet. Erm….
We shouldn’t be surprised by this, though. After all, the precedent has been set for us as the UK and the USA went through this a year before Australia’s unofficial “zero covid” strategy fell apart in an embarrassing mess. Governments, local authorities and police forces the world over have shown exactly how little regard they have for individual rights.
Some of those rights we took for granted which we no longer enjoy include:
Freedom of speech – social media is removing and banning dissenting voices. Look at the history of the lab leak hypothesis and what happened to those who suggested it. That the censor isn’t a government makes no difference if they are achieving the same outcome.
Freedom of movement – in Sydney, you will be fined for leaving a 10km radius of your home.
Freedom of association – protesters in Sydney are being fined. Private citizens cannot visit each other’s homes.
Freedom to work and earn – tradesmen were banned from going to work last month, and any business relying on footfall or seasonal trade has already been destroyed.
And the process of removing these rights is being “assisted” by the army. That should surely ring a few alarm bells?
Perhaps then, the only question worth asking is, “Are you ok with this?”.
If your answer is “yes”, I have a supplemental question for you.
“What, then, would it take for you to become concerned?”
The framing of these changes is that they are “to keep us safe”. If one assumes good faith on behalf of the law givers, there’s a line of logic we can see behind some of the laws. The debate, which we’ve obviously lost, is whether the price is worth it.
Personally, I believe we are now paying far too high a price in terms of dangerous precedent for the safety we are benefiting from. That ship has sailed though.
However, it’s hard to accept a good faith argument with regards to some of these measures. Outdoor mask wearing, for example, appears to make no logical sense.
We know that. They know that. And they know we know that.
Yet, why then?
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.