Posted on 11/22/2021 1:39:29 PM PST by ransomnote
It may all be innocuous, but the putting of people into camps still rubs me the wrong way. After all, my own country had its own sordid episode of putting Americans of Japanese ethnicity into camps on the West Coast during WWII, which, in hindsight, was unnecessary by most accounts.
Not apologizing like an Obama or Biden, just telling it like it was.
The report is accurate as far as it goes, but leaves out a hell of a lot of salient detail - probably because the person writing it doesn’t have a clue about the situation they are writing about - what these communities are like, the specific challenges they pose, etc.
In my view, targeted interventions like this one where small groups of people who are at specific risk are being specifically protected is understandable and justifiable and is what should have been happening throughout the pandemic.
Some of the models used in Australia have been drastically wrong.
From what I can see, in contrast, the recorded data has been pretty accurate.
There’s no due process.
In Australia, the constitutional amendment from 1967 that specifically allowed the Federal government to intervene to protect indigenous people is considered one of the most important positive steps in addressing historical racism and helping these people - by both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.
So interventions like this are more often than not seen as a good thing - provided they are done properly. It's not considered equivalent to internment (which Australia also did during the wars) - it's in a separate category of health intervention.
It allows indigenous people to continue to live on their ancestral lands even when it wouldn't normally be viable to do so, because when it's necessary for health reasons, they can be taken somewhere temporarily to receive the care they need. People choose to live in these communities with that understanding.
Check out the corporation involved.
Yes, I can - the data on infection and hospitalisation rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
In Australia we are finding that vaccination reduces the likelihood of infection from COVID-19 and dramatically reduces the hospitilisation rate, indicating that vaccinated people are far less likely to become seriously ill even if infected.
This is recorded data based on actual measured infections.
In contrast, the models are predictions of what is supposed to have happened in future.
Many of these have been dramatically wrong throughout the pandemic - unfortunately some state governments are still relying on them (Western Australia, for example, seems tobe using a model that says they will have more infections and thirty times the death of the entire rest of the country if they ‘open up too soon’ completely ignoring the fact that their population is much smaller than that of other states and their vaccination rate is already pretty high which would keep the numbers down a lot anyway).
Under Australian law, as derived from English common law, due process is being observed in these cases.
The United States has chosen to interpret that idea somewhat differently. That’s certainly within the right of the United States, but it doesn’t get to impose its interpretations on other countries.
Full blown AntiChrist ❎
It’s begun.
Thanks for the clarification. That targeted intervention certainly does beat doing things like locking down all of Melbourne or my old state of Maryland (I now live in Florida).
Much worse. The minds are gone :
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
King James Version
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.