If it’s one thing that’s been blatantly obvious over the past 18 months, it’s been the power-hungry politicians who’ve locked us all down. Mostly these are the premiers but the Prime Minister Scott Morrison too has a hand in this. He enabled them through the National Cabinet which gave them visible power, despite the fact that the states already had the health powers. Though this post will be dealing with the states and their politicians and bureaucrats who make the real decisions in each state.
Just a note, I wish that I could squarely blame this on the health bureaucrats who’ve seemed to be at level pegging with the premiers during this time. However, these decisions lay ultimately at the feet of these politicians; there’s a reason that we elected these people or there was anyway. I still object to the unelected bureaucrats making decisions for the population but it’s the fault of the premiers for enabling them.
Restrictions After Vaccination
We’ve seen what these premiers will do. What makes you think they’ll change what they’ll do. “Oh, don’t be cynical, Mitchell. There’s the vaccine now.” Dear oh dear, my dear reader, you are sorely mistaken. In fact, they’re not even hiding it anymore. Have you seen Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan? He’s the biggest example of a premier living in lockdown lunacy. I’ll talk about NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian too.
Western Australia; Alone or More Restricted For Christmas?
Mark McGowan said that at 80% vaccination, “We still reserve the right to lockdown in specific locations if absolutely necessary. So it might be a country town, it might be a local government area, something of that nature.” We know what that means, locking down all of Perth if an infected person goes throughout Perth. He said, “Lockdowns are, really, until we’re all vaccinated, the only thing that works”. The fact is, lockdowns aren’t proven to work. They don’t generally stop the spread or reduce hospitalisations. And if vaccines do work then why would you need a lockdown? Hmm… Plus what works is having a healthy populace with good hygiene. That was the messaging at the start of all this and the premiers shouldn’t of changed it as the main message. Science is still science.
Anyway, if you look at the studies, you really don’t see lockdowns as the recommendation. You’re only making things worse for people. If people are going to be sick and dying anyway, don’t make more people sick and die because of the lockdown.
Also, the bloke doesn’t care if you want to see your family for Christmas in Western Australia. He called the deadline of Christmas “artificial”. It’s not artificial, Premier McGowan. It’s real deadline. What’s artificial are the 70% and 80% fully vaccinated targets. 69% or 70% is basically the same but Christmas and not Christmas aren’t the same. Christmas isn’t “artificial” or arbitrary. It gives certainty to people. Talking about opening up at 70% and 80% fully vaccinated is extremely arbitrary. Just give a date to people so they can plan. Even if you’re under or over the target, make it that date. At the very least, make that date the final possible date for opening; say something like ‘the Monday after 70% or 20th December, whichever comes first’.
Instead of relaxing restrictions, he wants more. “There will be some level of restrictions that we will need to put in place”, he said in relation to when the WA borders open fully. So, being vaccinated isn’t your ticket to freedom and not even pretend “freedom”. So, look at what other countries are doing, like Denmark. They’ve thrown off all restrictions at 80% fully vaccinated. But Mark McGowan wants more.
NSW’s “Freedoms”, AKA Restrictions, Restrictions, Restrictions
I’ll be doing a full review of the NSW “freedoms”, more like July 2020-type, restrictions for the vaccinated at the 70% threshold in another post but here I’ll give to the general point of how things will still be locked down to some degree. And to be clear, the following rules are all for the vaccinated.
Still only 5 people will be allowed in a home; yet you can have unlimited at a hospitality, retail stores and gyms provided that there’s enough room for the “1 person per 4sqm inside and 1 person per 2sqm outside” rules. Oh and masks still inside everywhere. You still think this is freedom when you’re only allowed 5 people in your house? It’s a joke. Oh and they’re still banning worshipping God since they continue the ban of singing at church either; so still again they’re restricting freedom of religion.
What If Things Were The Opposite?
Look at the “lockdown roadmaps” from NSW and Victoria based on the National Plan or whatever it’s called; it’s hardly national when not all the states actually agree to it. All of them have set two factors for “freedom”. It’s ironic since real freedom doesn’t need a precursor or precursors. A person has to be “fully vaccinated” and the rest of the state has to reach a certain proportion of the population over 16 years old. So, just think about it. You went and took a vaccine but 80% of the state didn’t. Why should you be denied these “freedoms” because of what someone else does?
That gets to the core of all this. What if it was the other way around? What if it was the majority who were unvaccinated? You see that this has nothing to do with individual choice. Because if it was then it wouldn’t matter what anyone else did, you got vaccinated and you got what you got. I get the argument about businesses having low patronage or whatever and that’s fair enough. But that doesn’t apply to people meeting in homes or parks.
So, you can see the hypocrisy. They say it’s about individual choice to get the vaccine but individual choice is irrelevant if other people don’t follow you. That’s the crux of all of this. Just think about it for a moment. Say you’re voting and you and 100 other people vote properly but the rest of your electorate draws Mickey Mouse or does some other activity to make the vote informal and thus not count. Should your vote and the entire result be annulled because of others’ actions? No, if people chose to make a decision, you shouldn’t be affected by that. Another example, they don’t lock everyone up because there are murders around. Wait… Hmm…. Lockdowns… It’s very ironic. Killer people; no lockdown. Killer disease; lockdown.
Using those examples, you see the point. You are being restricted by the decisions of others. I can say that in both the hypothetical and real scenarios. The vaccinated are restricted from “freedoms” by the unvaccinated and the unvaccinated are restricted from “freedoms” by the vaccinated. Someone’s probably thinking that the two aren’t the same because the vaccinated aren’t preventing the unvaccinated from getting “freedoms”; however, they are in practice because if the number of vaccinated people didn’t reach the threshold, then everyone would be given the same “freedoms” no matter the size of them.
Again, I’ll have to rebut a point that someone is thinking that the two scenarios aren’t the same. Well, they are, if you believe that all people are equal. If you don’t, you’re saying that people aren’t equal, which is of course wrong and a dangerous idea. And this even more ridiculous when you understand that the terms ‘unvaccinated’ and ‘vaccinated’ to refer to a single group of vaccines that target one single disease. So, it’s apparently okay to keep everyone locked up for single disease but then open up because of a vaccine for one disease yet allow others to roam around because those vaccines aren’t relevant to opening up.
But I’ll address the true equality of ‘unvaccinated’ and ‘vaccinated’ people. As I’ve just said, this just refers to a single vaccine group; it’s about one disease. Why are people suddenly saying now that the vaccines make us more or less equal? It’s all an authoritarian move and I’ll talk more about that later. Why should some people be allowed something but others not? I’ll be talking more about segregation in other post but it’s something to consider because of the two scenarios that I put forth since you see that under the hypothetical scenario both groups are locked down and given the same “freedoms”. As you see, both are given the same thing when the most people are unvaccinated. But that just is the practical implication of government rules. The true intrinsic fact is that we are all made in the image of God and we are all equal in value and worth. Though, like I said, this is more to do with segregation topic, it’s still important, even in this post if only to rebut a point.
When Will COVID-19 Restrictions End?
This is got to be the big message. Your vaccination status didn’t matter before and suddenly it does now. You have to get this. Vaccination doesn’t equally real freedom or even “freedom”. They just said that it did matter once a certain number of people do the same thing. You have to understand that intrinsically speaking there is no difference in people. There is not difference even if we say that vaccination equals freedom because we have seen that it vaccination individually doesn’t equal freedom. You don’t get the vaccine and then get something in return. It’s like handing over your money and then maybe getting the car if the dealer wants to if some other people give him money but they can take it away at any point.
Yes, a vaccine is one more shot in the locker. It is another removal of an excuse from the government that allows them to away freedoms. But it’s not the be all and end all. It’s not the silver bullet. If it’s something we’ve seen over the last 18 months, it’s that rights we held so dear were taken without anything so much as a whimper. This has been us:
- Don’t go to China: Easy peasy
- Wash hands: Healthy
- Stay home: Okay
- Wear a mask: Alrighty
- Sign in with a QR code everywhere: If we have to
- Take a vaccine: Sure thing
I’m not saying all of those things are necessarily wrong but it’s all about following exactly what the government says contrary to common sense and sound expert medical advice. When is enough, enough? What won’t we do for the government? It literally seems that there’s no step that Australians won’t take in order to stop COVID-19. And what is next? What is the limit, Australia? If you’ve had a vaccine, why are you wearing a mask? Why will you let the government still dictate health orders to you after vaccination? Seriously, the vaccine will come to mean nothing if we don’t stand up. Like I said, when is enough, enough? We can’t let the government lock us down again.
Individual Choice But Not Really
So, as you can see, individual choice means nothing to what happens when people get vaccinated and when we go into the logical ramifications of things, we see that being locked down has nothing to do with vaccine status but opening up has everything to do with it. It makes no sense. There isn’t a one to one relationship with anything. Vaccination should equal freedom or it shouldn’t. The opposite must also be true. It’s like Animal Farm; some people are equal but some are more equal than others. It makes no logical sense.
There should be an equal relationship. Lockdown’s opposite should be opened up. Vaccinated’s opposite should be unvaccinated. Vaccinated should equal open up and then the opposite true, unvaccinated equal locked down. Not that I’m saying those are okay. I’m simply saying that there should be a proportional outcome in order to be logically consistent. Another option is everyone locked down and everyone opened up. The point is, you need some logical consistency to show that a vaccine gets the same thing every time. Otherwise, that reason for getting it crumbles and means nothing.
This image below shows the government’s illogical approach. The ticks represent whether do the following in each situation.
The Authoritarian Move
The fact is, Australians have become such sheep over the past 18 months that they could put lipstick on a pig and call it freedom and people would accept it. It is totally and utterly non-sensical. We have forgotten what it means to participate in life that we will take anything happily. Look, NSW’s plans are a great start but it’s not enough. It’s not freedom. The vaccine is supposed to work, so why have all these restrictions if only the vaccinated will utilise these “freedoms” and they theoretically can’t infect each other? I don’t want to hear nonsense about taking it nice and slowly when the whole point about having the vaccine is that you don’t need to have the restrictions in the first place. It’s like putting on a seatbelt but not driving the car. It’s so paradoxical to have a bunch of restrictions to “freedom” for vaccinated people who theoretically don’t need restrictions to protect them.
So why are the NSW Government and other states doing this? It is an authoritarian move. They tell you to get the vaccine and live life like it’s 2020 again but with more tracking because of vaccine passports. We don’t want to live in 2020. We want to live normally. These restrictions are saying the quiet part out loud. They’re saying that they don’t have full confidence in the vaccine to do its job and so other restrictions are needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 between vaccinated in these settings so that people aren’t hospitalised. That’s why I laugh when I hear people suggest that NSW is opening too early or saying that modelling suggests more hospitalisations after opening up. They’re all saying the quiet bit, the fact that the vaccine doesn’t work. This is since the vaccine is supposed to prevent hospitalisations and since these “freedoms” are only on offer to vaccinated people, how will the opening up affect hospitalisations? Hint, they shouldn’t. It’s only proving people like me right when this stuff is said. You’re all saying the quiet bit out loud. If you truly had confidence in the vaccines, none of this would be necessary.
If you don’t think that they, the NSW Government specifically, are saying the quiet bit out loud, there is only one other option. It’s a blatant authoritarian move. Not that the other justification (lack of confidence in the vaccines) isn’t authoritarian but at least they pretend to have a reason. Here there is no reason whatsoever. The vaccine works, right? Only the vaccinated have the “freedoms”, right? Check and check. If those are both right, then the restrictions are just plain authoritarianism. I mean, seriously, what other reason is there? None.
Power Hungry Hungry People
These politicians are power hungry and it’s not just the premiers; I dare say that the chief medical officers have become politicians, though unelected, since they seem to dictate government policy. Here’s an example of that.
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said, “If there’s high rates of disease in a particular locality or a sudden surge or an outbreak the Doherty Report says you have to restrict movement in those communities. It doesn’t mean you can’t still go and do the things you want to do but your mobility will be restricted within a particular distance. And that could happen at any stage because towns or cities outside of Greater Sydney even who haven’t had any outbreaks and experience an outbreak may have to come under that condition and I just want to make that very clear.”
She made it very clear, as she said. You will be given a distance from your house and you can only go within that. Perhaps your suburb or a kilometre distance. The point is, it’s more of the same. More of being told what to do. This is after you’ve been vaccinated; so think about it. Vaccination doesn’t stop the intrusion into your lives.
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian openly said that it would be the NSW Health department in charge of restriction that movement; she said, “[NSW] Health can restrict movement”. This would probably be from the desk of NSW’s Chief Health Officer, Dr. Kerry Chant. There was a whole lot more repetition of that topic during the entire 9th September 2021 press conference that these quotes were taken from and you can probably find direct attribution to the restriction decisions to Dr. Chant. Either way, we’d have unelected bureaucrats making decisions for people, telling them how far they can go from their own home. This is after vaccination, remember. So, this is another wake up call that the nonsense won’t end and the situation will still be the same after vaccination.
I could talk about how Queensland’s Chief Health Officer Dr. Jeannette Young will become Governor and thus how she’s moving from an unelected bureaucrat telling you what to do as Annastacia Palaszczuk’s puppet master to being the representative of the Queen in Queensland as Governor and thus the de facto head of state. What dictates could she place on Queensland when she has the authority to do so directly? Only the Queen could remove her and usually this is the case when the premier wants them gone and that’s unlikely with Palaszczuk. However, I won’t talk more about this situation other than to show how Dr. Young is power hungry and getting the top job in the state.
These post-vaccination restrictions and lockdowns are saying the quiet part out loud; the vaccine doesn’t work because why else would you need them? Things aren’t going to change whilst we do whatever the government says. We have to ensure that our rights are upheld and they aren’t whilst we accept lockdown post-vaccination. Make your voice heard. Contact your local representatives.
Take a look at the image below. When a few people stand up, everyone gets whipped by the master but when everyone stands up, it is the master who bows. We are the people. We are the government. Our leaders bow to us and not us to them. We bow to God alone, not the government.
I’ll end with this. You comply because you want it all to end but it never ends because you comply.