With 2 surges heading their way ,Sydney has decided to punish themselves by imposing another lockdown .
The first surge is an increases in Delta variant (formerly called the India variant ) . The other is mice on the rampage.

Under the new lock down residents are only permitted to leave their homes for essential work, education, to receive a COVID vaccine, to seek medical care, outdoor exercise and to shop for food or other essential items. Those who wish to exercise outdoors may only do so in groups of 10 or fewer.

Meanwhile a plague of mice has forced the closure of the Wellington Correctional Center in rural New South Wales state (about a 4 hr drive from Sydney) .The plague of mice have been ravaging the region for many weeks and will converge on Sydney by August (if it hasn't already reached the city) .

'Mice Rain' In Australia: Millions Of Mice Ravage Towns & Crops, Is Sydney Next? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-xnVRmBmhY)

With 2 surges heading their way ,Sydney has decided to punish themselves by imposing another lockdown .

What exactly would YOU have them do instead of "punishing" themselves in the face of a deadly virus?

I would not lock down for a couple dozen cases . But I'm sure il duce Cuomo can't wait to impose it again . The real question is why is the Aussie vaccination rate so low ?

I would not lock down for a couple dozen cases

Isn't a surge more than a couple dozen cases?


The real question is why is the Aussie vaccination rate so low ?

Isn't that all the more reason to lock down?

I don't believe in locking downs . I think free people should be appalled at the idea . I also don't think it is effective .

COVID Lockdowns May Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows (newsweek.com) (https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit-vs-other-voluntary-measures-international-study-shows-1561656)

Danish study suggests local lockdown had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 infection rate (news-medical.net) (https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210107/Danish-study-suggests-local-lockdown-had-no-effect-on-SARS-CoV-2-infection-rate.aspx)

Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence – AIER (https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/)

When we did not know how covid spreads then it may have made sense for a limited time . That was the original logic ;to not overwhelm the hospitals . Now that we know more about the disease a more targeted response is rational based on risk factors . A general lockdown is oppressive and not needed .

did you get your excelsior pass yet ? lol only il duce Cuomo could make it up

I think free people should be appalled at the idea

I'll never understand this attitude about "free people". I could name a million rules that "free people" are forced to do for various reasons, like public safety.


I also don't think it is effective .

We'll have to disagree on that one.


Now that we know more about the disease a more targeted response is rational based on risk factors

That is what the lockdowns have been - targeted according to the situation. Sometimes total, sometimes partial.

I don't believe in locking downs . I think free people should be appalled at the idea . I also don't think it is effective .
"Free" people too often become dead people.

It's only the expanded use of monopoly money that enables these lockdowns. One day that will come to a sad end, and the result is not going to be pretty.

It's only the expanded use of monopoly money that enables these lockdowns.
True that and the technological advances that allowed thing like Zoom meetings ,and Uber eats .I ask why were there no draconian authoritarian lockdowns for other pandemics prior to covid ? Jobs were destination a short time ago . Zoom ad virtual work were not possible When I went down with the virus I relied on grocery deliveries after I chose what to get on a virtual menu .During the dotcom craze there was an online grocery delivery service called Webvan . It was a big time bust even though it was ahead of it's time . The technology was just not there .Amazon only delivered books . The covid lockdowns would not have been possible 20 years ago. So it was capitalism's innovations that made these lockdowns possible .

Politicians believe in 2 roles ;spend money and 'do something' .That means create "crisis " and attempt to fix the crisis they invent .


"Free" people too often become dead people.

The left doesn't believe free people will make rational decisions in their self interest . Shortly after the virus began all the experts knew the high risk and low risk demographics . In NY the reason the death toll among the elderly was so high was because il duce Cuomo ignored that . I still wear masks except in my home and outdoors even though all mask mandates have been removed in South Carolina . Why ? Because I understand my own personal vulnerabilities .

Free people do not have to be told to lock in place if they know the personal risks . They are perfectly capable to make that choice on their own without big nanny .

The truth is that since we only had the lockdowns we will never know if they were effective . But the links I provided make a case that there was a rational alternative .

Ok let us set the record straight, the rate of infections is growing rapidly and those of us outside of Sydney don't want the potentially infectious travelling since it seems casual contact is sufficient for infection. The infections started in eastern Sydney and have since infected the whole region and it has even been carried right across the country. Secondly there is no mouse plague on the east coast, the mice have not crossed the ranges. This variant of covid is highly infectious, just being in proximity is sufficient, so as a free people we have decided to take public health measures which include a mask mandate, ban on non essential travel, and large gatherings are banned

What is concerning here and has forced action is the number of community acquired cases. Previously cases were related mainly to overseas travel but now we have community transmission

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-28/covid-live-updates-coronavirus-borders-sydney-outbreak-delta/100248456

clearly the mice are in the west
Mouse plague 'invades' Wellington prison, forcing hundreds of prisoners and staff to evacuate - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-22/wellington-correctional-centre-evacuated-due-to-mouse-plague/100233214) The prison is 4 hrs from Sydney


Why is the Aussie rate of vaccinations so low ? Only 4.7% vaccinated .

Most vaccines have to be imported, the locally manufactured Astra Zeneca vaccine is restricted to the older age group because of occurrence of blood clots in younger people. Because of a low infection rate the sense of urgency wasn't there for the imported vaccines, call it a mis judgement. An Australian developed vaccine gave false positives for HIV and was discontinued. The vaccination rate for older Australians is high but the young have been slow to get vaccinated, the Delta strain changes to game and has been shown to be highly infectious and may be air borne

The reason for lockdown in Sydney is the low vaccination rate among the now more vulnerable younger population

So it was capitalism's innovations that made these lockdowns possible

An incredible statement requiring no comment.


The left doesn't believe free people will make rational decisions in their self interest. Free people do not have to be told to lock in place if they know the personal risks . They are perfectly capable to make that choice on their own without big nanny.

Then how do you explain the millions who refuse to get vaccinated? Are they rational? Apparently, they need big nanny.

23 % have not been vaccinated . Almost half of those have concerns about side effects . That is a rational reason for not getting it .Past experiences with health services, family histories, all play a part .

You may disagree with their reasoning . Nonetheless it is a rational reason. I know someone who has been fighting the side effects of the last vaccine they had more than 3 years ago . Id say that person's reasoning is very rational .

Hundreds of healthcare workers have refused to take the vaccine . They are making a rational choice . The most common reason is how quickly the vaccine was developed, insufficient safety and effectiveness data.

Then how do you explain the millions who refuse to get vaccinated? Are they rational?As stated earlier, their refusal basically affects no one other than themselves. I can't imagine why it's considered to be anyone's business but theirs.

Look there appear to be problems with all the vaccines, Astra Zeneca has a history of blood clotting in younger persons but the death rate is low, Physer causes you to get the flu for a couple of days, Moderna isn't available yet. There are rumoured to be long term issues with the vaccines so people are hanging back because the infection rate has been low. The shutdown comes on medical advice and the doctors are panicking because they think they won't be able to cope with high infection rates, thus prevention is better than cure. Shutdown proved effective in Melbourne now at zero infections.

Meanwhile the supermarket shelves are once again being stripped of that vital edible toilet paper. Did the most expensive shop this morning I think I have ever done so prices? drought and flood affected supply and the damn virus are a triple wammy not to mention the mouse plague which is doing nothing for the wheat crop

I can't imagine why it's considered to be anyone's business but theirs.

You're clueless about how the virus spreads. Unvaccinated people can be asymptomatic and are the source of contagion.

Yes he is clueless about a lot of things. it is better to take precautions than not and a lassi faire attitude is unacceptable

Seems simple to me . If the vaccine is as effective as claimed then those vaccinated are protected . Those not vaccinated are taking the risk .

Seems simple to me . If the vaccine is as effective as claimed then those vaccinated are protected . Those not vaccinated are taking the risk .

Agreed. I would add that those not vaccinated are putting others at risk also in addition to themselves.

You're clueless about how the virus spreads. Unvaccinated people can be asymptomatic and are the source of contagion.They could only spread it to those who are similarly non-vaccinated and thus are taking the same risk. Pretty simple equation. It's still no one's business but their own.


it is better to take precautions than not and a lassi faire attitude is unacceptableI never cease to be amazed at how much fake conservatives want to control the lives of others.

Agreed. I would add that those not vaccinated are putting others at risk also in addition to themselves. Only others who choose to not get the vaccine. Driving on wet ,slippery,icy roads is a risk to oneself and others . Yet millions of people take that risk in the North East every winter .

If I was my old 40 year old self, I would not have taken the vaccine. The risk of dying, or even of hospitalization, for the under 50 crowd, especially for those who are otherwise healthy, is very, very, VERY low. Being 68 I decided that whatever risk it involved was an acceptable one relative to getting covid. But that was my decision and not the government's.

Only others who choose to not get the vaccine.

There are a few things wrong with that statement. Not everybody who is not vaccinated CHOOSES to be non-vaccinated. It was months before I found a place to get the vaccine that was accessible to me. Children generally do not choose yes or no re the vaccine. Then there are the disabled, the elderly, the housebound and so on and so forth. Not in every case, but in many cases.

But, most importantly, you seem to be saying it's not a problem if other non-vaccinated people get it because, after all, they also chose not to get the vaccine. If you think about that, it's like saying spreading the virus is OK if the spread-ee chose not to get it in the first place. The spreading is precisely the problem we're trying to stop.


Driving on wet ,slippery,icy roads is a risk to oneself and others . Yet millions of people take that risk in the North East every winter .

There are a few things wrong with that analogy also. The risk is not so great as to seriously affect the nation's economy or cause 500,000+ deaths or millions of hospitalizations or possibly long term sickness.

Second, what do you do when the authorities close the roads because of dangerous driving conditions?


Being 68 I decided that whatever risk it involved was an acceptable one relative to getting covid.

Your lack of action puts others at risk, not just yourself.

Not everybody who is not vaccinated CHOOSES to be non-vaccinated. It was months before I found a place to get the vaccine that was accessible to me. Children generally do not choose yes or no re the vaccine. Then there are the disabled, the elderly, the housebound and so on and so forth. Not in every case, but in many cases.Otherwise healthy children have virtually no risk factor with covid. As to the others, it would be a simple matter to put up a sign, "Only vaccinated people allowed here." It would certainly be preferable to a government imposed mandate to inject something into your body.

It would certainly be preferable to a government imposed mandate to inject something into your body.

That "something" you despise is a vaccine preventing a deadly virus - a vaccine that can save your life.

What government has mandated the vaccine?

what do you do when the authorities close the roads because of dangerous driving conditions?
Driving is a privilege not a right . Generally I approve of that because my stalled vehicle on the road impedes clean up efforts .

Driving is a privilege not a right . Generally I approve of that because my stalled vehicle on the road impedes clean up efforts .

So this somehow supports those refusing to get the vaccine?

That "something" you despise is a vaccine preventing a deadly virus - a vaccine that can save your life.All true enough, though you failed to mention that it is new technology and relatively unproven. I have no problem with you or anyone advocating for the vaccine. It's a government mandate that I would oppose.


What government has mandated the vaccine?Some state controlled universities have mandated it. There is a lot of talk of mandates for flying, working, etc.

All true enough, though you failed to mention that it is new technology and relatively unproven.

Relatively unproven? Where do you get that from?


It's a government mandate that I would oppose.

There is no government mandate.


There is a lot of talk of mandates

A lot of talk......???


California has mandated covid vaccination for school children.

Good for California.

Relatively unproven? Where do you get that from?This is the first of the mRNA vaccines to be used. The whole technology is fairly new and has never been used to mass produce a human vaccine.


A lot of talk......???Yes, like right here. "Good for California."

There are serious problems with many vaccines, the devil as usual is in the detail

(from Athos) There is no government mandate.


(from Jlsenbe)There is a lot of talk of mandates


(from Athos)A lot of talk......???


from Jlsenbe)Yes, like right here. "Good for California."

"A lot of talk" is NOT a mandate. You missed the point.

No, you missed the point. You asked about there being, "A lot of talk...??" I showed that you are talking about mandates affirmatively yourself in your approval of California.

Here is some of the "talk". https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-passports-and-the-u-s/

And to be clear, it is plain that there are some vaccine mandates already in place involving state institutions.

https://universitybusiness.com/state-by-state-look-at-colleges-requiring-vaccines/

No, you missed the point. You asked about there being, "A lot of talk...??" I showed that you are talking about mandates affirmatively yourself in your approval of California.

Vaccinations for schoolchildren is not "a lot of talk".


and to be clear, it is plain that there are some vaccine mandates already in place involving state institutions.

There is no government mandate. This thread is drifting.

I posted the link about talk of mandates. Also posted about university mandates. Ignore them if you want.

I posted the link about talk of mandates. Also posted about university mandates. Ignore them if you want.

So ignored.

so speaking of mandates and non mandates the Australian government has moved to make vaccination mandatory for workers in aged care facilities, it is a short step to making vaccination mandatory for many professions and eventually the whole population. he who pays the bill gets to set the conditions

The Australian federal government has said anyone who wants the AstraZeneca vaccine may have it while medical advice restricts this particular vaccine to over 60's. The Queensland government has said they won't follow and will continue to restrict the vaccine and so the rollout of the vaccine has become politicised. It is very academic since Queensland only has a few cases of the delta strain and is panicing again

Did lock downs contribute to the death rate ? The Rand Corporation and the University of Southern California, working on behalf of the National Bureau of Economic Research, released a study about that .


We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented [shelter in place] policies earlier, and in which [shelter-in-place] policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement [shelter in place] policies. We also failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after the implementation of [shelter in place] policies based on pre-[shelter in place] COVID-19 death rates.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Policy Responses on Excess Mortality | NBER (https://www.nber.org/papers/w28930)

People, businesses, and communities were destroyed because some public health “experts” were certain this was needed to save lives. They saved no lives but made people miserable and poorer in return for nothing.

People, businesses, and communities were destroyed because some public health “experts” were certain this was needed to save lives. They saved no lives but made people miserable and poorer in return for nothing.Sad. Many thousands of small businesses are shut down never to reopen.

From the link:


At the U.S. state-level, excess mortality increases in the immediate weeks following SIP introduction and then trends below zero following 20 weeks of SIP implementation.

Then;


We also failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after the implementation of SIP policies based on pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates.

So which is it?

In the first case, excess mortality is to be expected after signs of the virus spreading cause a lockdown - here called a "SIP" - shelter-in-place. An odd use of a term usually reserved for other phenomena. Why not use the common term "lockdown"?


People, businesses, and communities were destroyed because some public health “experts” were certain this was needed to save lives.

The areas that followed the expert's advice were and are showing a much lower infection rate than areas that didn't.


They saved no lives but made people miserable and poorer in return for nothing.

They significantly reduced the numbers getting Covid-19 leading to hospitalization and death. They did this by wearing masks, social distancing, and vaccination. The lockdowns were to keep people from gathering in groups to prevent/slow down infection.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented social distancing and SIP policies. These policies are designed to slow COVID-19 transmission by limiting physical interaction. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021). We used data from 43 countries and all U.S. states and find the introduction of SIP policies did not lead to reductions in excess deaths. This study is not without limitations. First, how COVID-19 deaths are defined is not standard across countries (Beaney et al. 2020). For this reason, we rely on total mortality, instead of cause-specific mortality. However, total mortality can also suffer from measurement error. For example, there could be a lag in registering deaths and upward revision of mortality data is common in many countries. It is also possible that deaths are simply undercounted especially in developing countries or rural areas due to lack of resources. Second, enforcement and implementation of SIP policies could vary across countries or U.S. states and our main analysis does not implement heterogenous treatment effects—although the country by country and state by state event studies suggest that the findings were qualitatively similar other than for a few island countries and Hawaii. For this reason, we emphasize that our results should be interpreted using an intent-to-treat framework. We do not estimate the effect of “ideal” SIP policies or of improved compliance with SIP policies, but rather evaluate the “real world” impact of SIP 16policies that were implemented. Third, it is possible that SIP policies were implemented with other policies related to the pandemic and we cannot completely isolate the causal effects of SIP policies. Finally, the counterfactual trajectory of the pandemic in the absence of SIP policies is difficult to estimate and might vary across countries and states, which could bias estimates.However, we do not find differences in the impact of SIP policies based on the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic when policies were implemented. Nonetheless, the implementation of SIP policies does not appear to have met the aim of reducing excess mortality. There are several potential explanations for this finding. First, it is possible that SIP policies do not slow COVID-19 transmission. As discussed earlier, prior studies find only a modest effect of SIP policies on mobility. A potential reason for the modest impact on mobility may be that individuals change behavior to avoid COVID-19 risk even in the absence of SIP policies. It is also unclear whether modest reductions in mobility could slow the spread of an airborne pathogen. Second, it is possible that SIP policies increased deaths of despair due to economic and social isolation effects of SIP policies. Recent estimates in the U.S between March and August 2020 show that drug overdoses, homicides, and unintentional injuries increased in 2020, while suicides declined (Faust et al. 2021). Third, existing studies suggest that SIP policies led to a reduction in non-COVID-19 health care, which might have contributed to an increase in non-COVID-19 deaths (Cantor et al. 2020; Ziedan, Simon, and Wing 2020). For example, one study in the United Kingdom predicts that there will be approximately an additional 3,000 deaths within five years due to a delay in diagnostics because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Maringe et al. 2020). In light of this evidence, continued reliance on SIP policies to slow COVID-19 transmission may not be optimal. Instead, the best policy response may be pharmaceutical interventions in the 17form of vaccinations and therapeutics when they become available. Early evidence suggests that initial vaccination efforts have led to large reductions in COVID-19 incidence (Christie 2021; X. Chen et al. 2021; Haas et al. 2021). Policy efforts to promote vaccination are thus likely to have large positive impacts.

w28930.pdf (nber.org) (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf)

I agree that shutdown policies have destroyed businesses. In my country, infection rates have been incredibly low despite no vaccines for twelve months, so maybe shutdown did something, but I think border closures have done more to stop the spread since most cases have been travellers

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented social distancing and SIP policies. These policies are designed to slow COVID-19 transmission by limiting physical interaction. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021). We used data from 43 countries and all U.S. states and find the introduction of SIP policies did not lead to reductions in excess deaths. This study is not without limitations. First, how COVID-19 deaths are defined is not standard across countries (Beaney et al. 2020). For this reason, we rely on total mortality, instead of cause-specific mortality. However, total mortality can also suffer from measurement error. For example, there could be a lag in registering deaths and upward revision of mortality data is common in many countries. It is also possible that deaths are simply undercounted especially in developing countries or rural areas due to lack of resources. Second, enforcement and implementation of SIP policies could vary across countries or U.S. states and our main analysis does not implement heterogenous treatment effects—although the country by country and state by state event studies suggest that the findings were qualitatively similar other than for a few island countries and Hawaii. For this reason, we emphasize that our results should be interpreted using an intent-to-treat framework. We do not estimate the effect of “ideal” SIP policies or of improved compliance with SIP policies, but rather evaluate the “real world” impact of SIP 16policies that were implemented. Third, it is possible that SIP policies were implemented with other policies related to the pandemic and we cannot completely isolate the causal effects of SIP policies. Finally, the counterfactual trajectory of the pandemic in the absence of SIP policies is difficult to estimate and might vary across countries and states, which could bias estimates.However, we do not find differences in the impact of SIP policies based on the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic when policies were implemented. Nonetheless, the implementation of SIP policies does not appear to have met the aim of reducing excess mortality. There are several potential explanations for this finding. First, it is possible that SIP policies do not slow COVID-19 transmission. As discussed earlier, prior studies find only a modest effect of SIP policies on mobility. A potential reason for the modest impact on mobility may be that individuals change behavior to avoid COVID-19 risk even in the absence of SIP policies. It is also unclear whether modest reductions in mobility could slow the spread of an airborne pathogen. Second, it is possible that SIP policies increased deaths of despair due to economic and social isolation effects of SIP policies. Recent estimates in the U.S between March and August 2020 show that drug overdoses, homicides, and unintentional injuries increased in 2020, while suicides declined (Faust et al. 2021). Third, existing studies suggest that SIP policies led to a reduction in non-COVID-19 health care, which might have contributed to an increase in non-COVID-19 deaths (Cantor et al. 2020; Ziedan, Simon, and Wing 2020). For example, one study in the United Kingdom predicts that there will be approximately an additional 3,000 deaths within five years due to a delay in diagnostics because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Maringe et al. 2020). In light of this evidence, continued reliance on SIP policies to slow COVID-19 transmission may not be optimal. Instead, the best policy response may be pharmaceutical interventions in the 17form of vaccinations and therapeutics when they become available. Early evidence suggests that initial vaccination efforts have led to large reductions in COVID-19 incidence (Christie 2021; X. Chen et al. 2021; Haas et al. 2021). Policy efforts to promote vaccination are thus likely to have large positive impacts.

w28930.pdf (nber.org) (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf)


The facts on the ground dispute this entire study. It is a fact that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are effective.

Yes, Tom. How dare you introduce a study that merely used, "data from 43 countries and all U.S. states". Did they use all of those "facts on the ground" that are evidently so important?

Yes, Tom. How dare you introduce a study that merely used, "data from 43 countries and all U.S. states". Did they use all of those "facts on the ground" that are evidently so important?

Up yours, jack - why don't you mind your own business and stop stalking me?

The facts on the ground dispute this entire study. It is a fact that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are effective.Agreed. We must read the "fine print" in this report.
1. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021)

2. This study is not without limitations. First, how COVID-19 deaths are defined is not standard across countries (Beaney et al. 2020). For this reason, we rely on total mortality, instead of cause-specific mortality.

3. It is also possible that deaths are simply undercounted especially in developing countries or rural areas due to lack of resources.

4. ...enforcement and implementation of SIP policies could vary across countries or U.S. states and our main analysis does not implement heterogenous treatment effects....

5. ...we cannot completely isolate the causal effects of SIP policies.

And so on....

from Athos
The facts on the ground dispute this entire study. It is a fact that masks, social distancing and lockdowns are effective.



Agreed. We must read the "fine print" in this report.
1. While early U.S. and international evidence suggests that these policies did slow COVID-19 transmission (Aleman et al. 2020; Courtemanche et al. 2020), the longer-run and more comprehensive effects of these policies are not fully understood (Berry et al. 2021)

2. This study is not without limitations. First, how COVID-19 deaths are defined is not standard across countries (Beaney et al. 2020). For this reason, we rely on total mortality, instead of cause-specific mortality.

3. It is also possible that deaths are simply undercounted especially in developing countries or rural areas due to lack of resources.

4. ...enforcement and implementation of SIP policies could vary across countries or U.S. states and our main analysis does not implement heterogenous treatment effects....

5. ...we cannot completely isolate the causal effects of SIP policies.

And so on....


Nice to have someone who can read and analyze. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who can't.

Nice to have someone who can read and analyze. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction from someone who can't.
I was just reading the health column in one of our morning newspapers. Because the Delta variant has now appeared in all 50 US states -- and we don't know its effect, even fully vaccinated people are encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes.

Up yours, jack - why don't you mind your own business and stop stalking me?And yet another well-reasoned, rational response.

Poor Athos. Thankfully (for you), WG seems to adore you and would never raise her voice about your crude response.


Nice to have someone who can read and analyzeYeah. Shame it wasn't you. At any rate, WG managed to just breeze by this.

" In light of this evidence, continued reliance on SIP policies to slow COVID-19 transmission may not be optimal. Instead, the best policy response may be pharmaceutical interventions in the 17form of vaccinations and therapeutics when they become available. Early evidence suggests that initial vaccination efforts have led to large reductions in COVID-19 incidence (Christie 2021; X. Chen et al. 2021; Haas et al. 2021). Policy efforts to promote vaccination are thus likely to have large positive impacts."

At any rate, WG managed to just breeze by this.
And you breezed by this that I said in that same post:

"[Because of the Delta variant] even fully vaccinated people are encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes."

What makes you think I "breezed" by it? I didn't comment on it since it was not a part of the article in question, but I did see it. I actually have no problem with masks. I'll wear one when I'm told to. I can even social distance if need be. The point of the article was lockdowns, identified in the article as shelter in place (SIP).

Now be honest. Don't you think Athos's response to me was really crude? Stand up and be a (wo)man. Wasn't it clearly a crude comment??

Yes but I can understand why you attract such a response

Yes but I can understand why you attract such a response

Me too. It's been well reported that some areas and regions are less vaccinated than others and that just makes the potential for a spike in infections and transmissions more likely.

And yet another well-reasoned, rational response.

Poor Athos.

Screw you, you moron.


Now be honest. Don't you think Athos's response to me was really crude? Stand up and be a (wo)man. Wasn't it clearly a crude comment??

Stick around, I'll show you crude. Arse-hole.


Yes but I can understand why you attract such a response (referring to idiot boy Jl-sh*t-head)

It's unanimous.

encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes.
a far cry from a mandated lockdown.
Reply (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3870971)

Me too. It's been well reported that some areas and regions are less vaccinated than others and that just makes the potential for a spike in infections and transmissions more likely.
And the Delta variant is largely an unknown.

Screw you, you moron.

Oh calm down, Athos. Not good to get the ole blood pressure up so high. You'll come up with some answers sooner or later.

encouraged to wear masks and social distance when outside their homes.


a far cry from a mandated lockdown.Exactly. One is relatively painless while the whole SIP thing is economically devastating.

Ok back to the original thread. Today the Australian government announced the way forward out of the covid crisis and at the same time reduced the arrivals cap from overseas. It is unsaid but clear they understand this crisis is not of our making but it is a crisis to be solved by reducing exposure to the source until there is a high level of vaccination. Meanwhile lockdown is to be a last resort

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/australia/scott-morrison-reveals-national-cabinet-decision-on-vaccination-targets/news-story/c4116b6ae9c547ed1d101808d3f95ae6

As I understand it you are 8% vaccinated now. What seems to be the holdup? Vaccine supply, maybe?

Perhaps a strong push to get the over 40 crowd vaccinated would work? The under 40's don't have nearly the risk.

As I understand it you are 8% vaccinated now. What seems to be the holdup? Vaccine supply, maybe?

Perhaps a strong push to get the over 40 crowd vaccinated would work? The under 40's don't have nearly the risk.

Yes vaccine supply is one problem we are at the end of the que as we put reliance on local supply of AstraZeneca and there are problems with blood clots, also getting manufacture takes time. As I explained earlier; an Australian developed vaccine gave false positive for HIV and was abandoned so forcing us to look to overseas manufacture. We have high numbers in the older population but the young considered themselves bullet proof until delta came along. Most of our cases were from travellers who were quarantined and so very low community transmission. the vaccine rollout concentrated on older people particularly those in aged care as these were the most vulnerable and responsible for most deaths. Personally I have had my first shot of AstraZeneca. I understand that last week there were 1 million vaccinations so the target is everyone vaccinated by the end of the year

Oh calm down, Athos. Not good to get the ole blood pressure up so high. You'll come up with some answers sooner or later.

You can take my answers and choke on them, jackass.

You can take my answers and choke on them, jackass.

Come on, calm down now, we have more important things to talk about. You don't need to respond to him

Seek treatment. Your irrational anger is a problem.

Seek treatment. Your irrational anger is a problem.


I learned you were making snide smarmy remarks to my posts after I was ignoring you. You are a sniveling coward. Afraid to make them to my face, now you are getting a taste of your own medicine.

Enjoy it, creep.

Just an annoying little sound who big and brave from a distance.

Just an annoying little sound who big and brave from a distance.

No, that's your mo - I won't take it away from you. This "little sound" apparently is getting loud in your ears.

Nah. Just a mosquito. I know your kind. Big and brave when hundreds of miles away.

At any rate, why not get back to a serious discussion.

At any rate, why not get back to a serious discussion.

Getting too hot for you?

Nah. Not even close.

Nah. Not even close.

Oh, yes, you're starting to feel a bit hot under the collar. Not admitting it won't help.

Fraid not.

Fraid not.

In case you missed it ----------------------------------


This is the clown who believes babies are roasted in hell for all eternity because they didn't believe in Jesus when they died as infants. He claims that all humanity, including babies and innocents, goes to hell unless they believe in Jesus. No exceptions. Keep that in mind when reading anything he says on these pages.

You are still lying about that, Mr. Aquinas?

Well, this has become silly. I regret having allowed myself to be dragged down to your level. Fire your lies away. Enjoy, I guess.

You are still lying about that, Mr. Aquinas?

Well, this has become silly. I regret having allowed myself to be dragged down to your level. Fire your lies away. Enjoy, I guess.

You don't need much dragging down - you're already there as witnessed below
..................


Jlisenbe is the clown who believes babies are roasted in hell for all eternity because they didn't believe in Jesus when they died as infants. He claims that all humanity, including babies and innocents, goes to hell unless they believe in Jesus. No exceptions. Keep that in mind when reading anything he says on these pages.

I've lived in the basement with you long enough. Looking at these posts, I can scarcely believe I've allowed myself to be dragged down to this level, a mistake for which I am completely at fault. So I'll just offer my apologies for any way in which I have been offensive. I will continue to call you out when you lie, and I will continue to confront false statements you might happen to make. I will also encourage you to do the same with me, but I will do so in a civil manner. How you behave is up to you.

As to the quote of YOURS that you keep posting, I'm pretty sure everyone here sees it for what it is. "I know JL lied because I've quoted Athos to prove it." What???

I will continue to call you out when you lie, and I will continue to confront false statements you might happen to make. I will also encourage you to do the same with me, but I will do so in a civil manner. How you behave is up to you.

Ha ha - LOL. This part is rich. "I apologize, etc., etc., and I will continue to call you out when you lie". Ya can't make stuff up like that. Priceless!

This part is almost as good - "I will continue to confront false statements ....... in a civil manner.....". The head-slapping part here is that Jl has been uncivil and mean-spirited and nasty since the day he arrived. Now that he's in the hot seat, he's all apologetic.

How you behave is your problem. I only control myself. But if I become uncivil, then by all means call me out on it. Just be prepared to be specific. You do have the Aquinas history behind you, so I tend to not trust your allegations.

You do have the Aquinas history behind you, so I tend to not trust your allegations.

Rejecting my Aquinas anecdote does NOT make it false. In any case, my Aquinas story compared to your Jesus story are light-years apart. Aquinas never sent most of the world to hell, and I never said he did. Your Jesus condemned the whole world of unbelievers to hell and torture and you said he did.

Trustworthy? You? Not a chance.

No, but adding the truncated quote made your description of it false. No question about it. Would you like for me to repost it? I assure you I can. Then everyone can make up their own minds about it.

No, but adding the truncated quote made your description of it false. No question about it. Would you like for me to repost it? I assure you I can. Then everyone can make up their own minds about it.

Why don't you post your belief about Jesus and hell so we can all make a fair comparison?

Why don't you believe what Jesus said?

Why don't you believe what Jesus said?

Why do you say I don't?

Look at the Genesis thread.

Look at the Genesis thread.

I did. I don't see the answer there either.

How has this degenerated into a religious debate?

How has this degenerated into a religious debate?

It's inevitable when dealing with a white evangelist who supports Trump. The two are inextricably connected.

I don't see the connection Trump is not a religious man

I don't see the connection Trump is not a religious man
White evangelicals say he's a baby Christian.

I don't see the connection Trump is not a religious man

Then why are the evangelicals supporting him along with the racists, and loonies? Strange bedfellows indeed.

Put in the context of the demonrats any port in a storm

You're right there a very few conservative heroes nationally, but a lot of emerging dufus clones and clowns.

from Athos
It's inevitable when dealing with a white evangelist who supports Trump. The two are inextricably connected.


I don't see the connection Trump is not a religious man

Both camps, Trump supporters and OT God followers, follow the strongman theory of history. That explains many of the similarities - especially the bizarre ones.

Trump's voters are primarily from white evangelicals.

White evangelicals say he's a baby Christian.I'd still love to know what a "white evangelical" is and how their beliefs differ from non-white evangelicals.

I'd still love to know what a "white evangelical" is and how their beliefs differ from non-white evangelicals.
Black evangelicals believe in human equality as a biblical principle based on the oneness of the human family under God as Creator, stressing the importance of agape in their dealings with all humans and the need to reject racial and national barriers that forbid full fellowship and cooperative ministry. Black evangelicals give priority to Christ’s command to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

White evangelicals (formerly termed fundamentalists -- rigid Bible literalists -- but they stole the evangelical term so as to sound more acceptable as Christians) turn increasingly inward, are caught up in their own internal affairs or controversies, and simply become more and more comfortable with the racial status quo.

Black evangelicals believe in human equality as a biblical principle based on the oneness of the human family under God as Creator, stressing the importance of agape in their dealings with all humans and the need to reject racial and national barriers that forbid full fellowship and cooperative ministry. Black evangelicals give priority to Christ’s command to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

White evangelicals (formerly termed fundamentalists -- rigid Bible literalists -- but they stole the evangelical term so as to sound more acceptable as Christians) turn increasingly inward, are caught up in their own internal affairs or controversies, or simply become more and more comfortable with the racial status quo.


Excellent answer. One of the best.

Really, you think Christians racist. this view is coloured by the peculiar circumstance of your country and its history of racism

Really, you think Christians racist. this view is coloured by the peculiar circumstance of your country and its history of racism
Exactly, 'Clete! It's a U.S. problem.

and Yet your country is a racial melting pot? go figure

and Yet your country is a racial melting pot? go figure
Some people are trying to fill the pot so the stew has white meat only.

Black evangelicals believe in human equality as a biblical principle based on the oneness of the human family under God as Creator, stressing the importance of agape in their dealings with all humans and the need to reject racial and national barriers that forbid full fellowship and cooperative ministry. Black evangelicals give priority to Christ’s command to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

White evangelicals (formerly termed fundamentalists -- rigid Bible literalists -- but they stole the evangelical term so as to sound more acceptable as Christians) turn increasingly inward, are caught up in their own internal affairs or controversies, and simply become more and more comfortable with the racial status quo.And you know all of this how?


a biblical principle based on the oneness of the human family under God as Creator,Since this is a "biblical principle", can you show us scripture to support that contention?

It is simple he is the father of all, the ultimate progenitor


Genesis 1.27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Nowhere does it say that he created races to be different

And you know all of this how?
I've lived a long life and have visited many parts of the U.S., have interacted with people of color and from many different cultures.

Since this is a "biblical principle", can you show us scripture to support that contention?
Isaiah 45:18 and 1 John 3:1-3, my cherrypicking for the week.

ah go on, save us from looking it up?

The Isaiah passage supports your idea not at all. "18For this is what the LORD says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other." So where in that passage does it say anything about "the oneness of the human family under God the Creator?"

Might add the curious feature that you don't accept the Genesis account of God as creator. Strange, don't you think?

The 1 John passage, given a little context, actually refutes your idea. "1See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Now there is an avenue of entrance into God's family, but it is not natural birth. It is found in many places. John chapter 1 is selected here. "10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

You really need to gain some understanding on the idea of cherry-picking. In your world, an appeal to the First Amendment for freedom of speech is cherry picking.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position." So if someone actually is cherry picking, it can easily be shown to be the case by simply pointing out the material that is contradictory.

Might add the curious feature that you don't accept the Genesis account of God as creator. Strange, don't you think?
Yes, I do, especially that God is the Creator, as have many cultures and indigenous tribes before me. I don't get my panties in a twist over HOW He did it -- just believe He was the One.

So if someone actually is cherry picking, it can easily be shown to be the case by simply pointing out the material that is contradictory.
Oh my! Apparently, like you do so well, I can't cherry pick anymore. And all those years I spent doing just that in the cherry orchards of western NY. Woe is me!

It is simple he is the father of all, the ultimate progenitor



Nowhere does it say that he created races to be different

Racism, born of hate and fear, is entirely a human construct.

Racism, born of hate and fear, is entirely a human construct.
And even within each race, there's suspicion and distrust and envy and hate.

Why can't we all just get along??? It isn't that difficult!

And even within each race, there's suspicion and distrust and envy and hate.Absolutely true. True even within families.

I've lived a long life and have visited many parts of the U.S., have interacted with people of color and from many different cultures.In other words, you don't really know. You're just expressing a personal opinion. That's fine, but it's no substitute for a real answer.

I think it's funny how you two love to toss those terms around, terms for which you have no real understanding and have no desire to understand. This seems like a pretty good description. "Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism, is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity that maintains the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement. Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message. The movement has long had a presence in the Anglosphere before spreading further afield in the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

"Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism, is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity that maintains the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement.
The difference is, true evangelicals are not literalists. Fundamentalists are.

The difference is, true evangelicals are not literalists. Fundamentalists are.Just another opinion.

Just another opinion.
Ask any pastor whose church has the word "evangelical" in its name. JL, do you know what that word means? (Pssst, ORIGIN: Middle English (in the sense ‘gospel’): from Old French evangile, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek euangelion ‘good news’, from euangelos ‘bringing good news’, from eu- ‘well’ + angelein ‘announce’.)

Ask any pastor whose church has the word "evangelical" in its name. JL, do you know what that word means?Did you just wake up? I just posted the description of evangelicals above, not thirty minutes ago.

It's just your opinion, WG. You are welcome to it, but it has no real credibility.

It's just your opinion, WG. You are welcome to it, but it has no real credibility.
Hardly, JL. You need to get out more. Evangelical is NOT what literalists are.

And still more opinion. Sorry, but I don't put much stock in your opinion, but as I've said, you are certainly welcome to it.

And still more opinion. Sorry, but I don't put much stock in your opinion, but as I've said, you are certainly welcome to it.
Ask any pastor of an evangelical congregation. I grew up surrounded by legions of them. And rubbed elbows with them during much of my adult life.

Opinion...opinion...opinion.

I've been preaching for forty years. I know a lot of preachers, and many are evangelicals. And that means that, like you, I have met much less than 1/100 of 1% of evangelical preachers, and thus can draw no useful conclusions at all from my contacts.

can draw no useful conclusions at all from my contacts.
Now you're a preacher too???

My 70 years of involvement trumps (ha ha trumps) your 40 years.

Opinion...opinion...opinion.

I've been preaching for forty years. I know a lot of preachers, and many are evangelicals. And that means that, like you, I have met much less than 1/100 of 1% of evangelical preachers, and thus can draw no useful conclusions at all from my contacts.

You obviously don't practice what you preach, you do know the Bible tells us not to engage in philosophical arguments

You obviously don't practice what you preach, you do know the Bible tells us not to engage in philosophical arguments

1. You do realize that you (and everyone else here) do that all the time, including right now, all of which makes your statement hilarious?

2. The Bible says no such thing. It occurs all over the place in the NT. For instance, " 26From one ancestor* he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God* and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28For “In him we live and move and have our being”; as even some of your own poets have said, “For we too are his offspring.”

Or, "For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Or, "6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."

3. Any discussion of religion is a philosophical discussion. "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

4. Jesus Himself was repeatedly involved in discussions of truth. Happened all over the place.


My 70 years of involvement trumps (ha ha trumps) your 40 years.Another opinion. I did like your play on words!

The Sydney lockdown is to be extended and yet the infection count is low and the infection shows no sign of spreading, this is the medical profession and the politicians gone mad as they have their last fling of power. The federal government announced a plan last week to move from suppression of the virus to living with the virus and yet Gladys keeps us in the dark ages of despair when there are a few clusters. This is madness and she will pay come election time

this is the medical profession and the politicians gone mad as they have their last fling of power. Yes indeed . Our leaders have gone to school on how far they can go to curb freedoms after they declare a crisis .

What was the famous quote..."Never let a good crisis go to waste?"

Yes Gladys is singing from that song sheet

il duce Cuomo declared a state emergency in NY due to gun violence . This comes just a couple weeks after he relinquished emergency powers he seized over covid . He be missin that authoritarian control. He revealed a series of executive orders to counter gun violence . One of them was NOT hiring more cops. Hey Andrew ! a real emergency was the mass casualty event that you created in NY nursing homes !

How do your mayors get so much power, the best ours can do is order more garbage pickups

he's a Governor . But yeah the mayors of major cities become celebrities be they Sandinista Bill in NYC or Mayor Beetlejuice in Chicago . Previously down town Willie Brown was mayor of San Francisco . Kam the Sham rode him to the top when she was DA of San Francisco county .

Yes your state governors are equivalent to our state Premiers although Governor is a different position, the local equivalent, perhaps, of your president at state level. We very rarely get a cross over between the state and federal politics, perhaps because their qualities are already known

Thus said deputy Premier and leader of the national party John Barilaro and yet his constituents are not affected, living as they do in regional areas so I'm unsure what control he thinks he has lost. Perhaps it is the control of being able to do business with Sydney, which is in panic mode, as a few suburbs register infections of the delta strain. the State premier has lost it as the lockdown continues and becomes more stringent and yet there are stupid rules like allowing truck drivers to leave Sydney and travel interstate carrying the virus as some have infected two other states.

It is time for common sense, either shut the shops or open up and enforce the mask, testing and distancing rules but the state is in economic chaos for a few hundred infections most of which are isolated. We endured shutdown a year ago and most infections were not in the community because of the panic of the state premier and the chief medical officer and they are doing it again

stupid rules like allowing truck drivers to leave Sydney and travel interstate you really want to shut down commerce ? How about those trucks that deliver food to Sydney ? Do you want them to stop rolling too ?

Some people want all the trucks stopped except for the ones that deliver to them.

you really want to shut down commerce ? How about those trucks that deliver food to Sydney ? Do you want them to stop rolling too ? No But they don't have to travel interstate for stupid reasons like moving household furniture