Finally... That voting map seems to act as a surrogate for level of compassion, or dodginess eh; Labor and Greens still voting against, and Jacqui Lambie finally coming around (expected better of her previously).
Hopefully this becomes something that increases transparency - and maybe even a skerrick of accountability...
I think previous votes were very close, as Senators tend to vote in blocs along party lines (in direct contradiction to the idea of a Senate as a state-focused house of review ...). I'd like to think it was a change of heart, but that's a naive view of how political decisions are made. There is always (and there will always ...) be horse-trading of some kind, where groups support each other on Issue A in response to getting support for Issue B; in theory it's about the details of the issues, but that's not how politics works (anywhere), except in the (very rare) case of 'conscience votes'.
I have recently written to the Greens, pointing out the apparent inconsistency of expressing "solidarity" with Thalidomide victims and seeking "justice, recognition and ongoing support" for them as demonstrated in https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-solidarity-thalidomide-survivors but continuing to vote down the idea of even finding out what is happening in Australia now with (often mandatory) Covid pandemic responses.
Indeed, Rebekah. It’s complex and multi-factorial, I agree, which is precisely why the question demands a disciplined and independent inquiry. Whether we will ever get one is of course questionable. Two major issues, both in NYC and WA are the veracity of the PCR testing used to determine the presence of Covid-19 (which many have questioned, especially as CT values are almost never published) and the attribution of deaths to Covid (‘from Covid’ or ‘with Covid’?) Recent dodgy-looking processes to redefine ‘excess deaths’ by the ONS and others are another issue. Frankly, it is difficult to be optimistic that, even if it is decided to conduct a Senate inquiry, it will be constructed well enough to get to the bottom of all the factors. My hunch is that the stakes are too high and there are too many vested interests to allow that to happen, especially now that we’ve changed federal governments with no discernible change of ‘pandemic’ direction. Unfortunately.
I don’t understand why there are such large differences between states, shown in the ABS-derived map. If the excess deaths are a consequence of vaccination - as many suspect, but this requires a proper independent inquiry to determine - why should there be such large state differences, when all states were hooked on to the same national narrative for vaccination (In a nutshell, vaccinate almost everybody as often as possible)? Something else is needed to explain this phenomenon.
I noticed this too Barry. Even if you consider the Covid vaccines to be more lethal and damaging than your average medicine, I don't think they can account for the entirety of excess deaths by any stretch. WA is a good example. Excess deaths started to increase in 2021, with on-off lockdowns and with 4 million doses of vaccination, but no Covid. In 2022, they continued to increase and that is when we had most of our covid deaths. You might guess that 2021 excess deaths had something to do with delayed care, stress and vaccinations, while 2022 was heavily impacted by Covid and its related illnesses (eg: bacterial pneumonia). Pure speculation of course, but it seems obvious that the cause would be multi-factorial.
(Cross-posted on another Substack) Readers interested in excess deaths will find the studies of the excess deaths in New York in 2020 of interest. These are of course not attributable to adverse vaccine reactions, but are important because they were a major instrument of panic and over reaction in many countries, including Australia. https://pandata.org/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any-sense/
One of the issues with the ruling is (I suspect) that Queensland has a Human Rights Act, but that is not the case for all states (e.g. WA does not have one) or nationally (there is no Commonwealth Act, as is regularly debated). Of course, the issues ought to be ethical and moral, not legal, but we live in a country under the 'rule of law'.
And, speaking of human rights, even in the absence of local legislation, this WCH brief offers an excellent overview of how such rights ought be preserved in the case of severe threats. Well worth a read. Clearly, we failed miserably last time, but should make sure we don't next time. (Letting WHO make the decisions is clearly an unaceptable strategy.)
Now, am I too pessimistic about our political processes to follow up with the question: "How badly will this be whitewashed?"
Finally... That voting map seems to act as a surrogate for level of compassion, or dodginess eh; Labor and Greens still voting against, and Jacqui Lambie finally coming around (expected better of her previously).
Hopefully this becomes something that increases transparency - and maybe even a skerrick of accountability...
Jacqui Lambie voted yes....interesting
I remember a short speech / response during the covid lockdowns - it was awful.
"Yesterday, enough Senators had a change of heart on the subject to pass Senator Babet’s motion, 31:30."
Most likely enough Senators have been personally affected by these Jabs to want to do something.
Curious still, no mention of "Covid Misinformation" eh?
I think previous votes were very close, as Senators tend to vote in blocs along party lines (in direct contradiction to the idea of a Senate as a state-focused house of review ...). I'd like to think it was a change of heart, but that's a naive view of how political decisions are made. There is always (and there will always ...) be horse-trading of some kind, where groups support each other on Issue A in response to getting support for Issue B; in theory it's about the details of the issues, but that's not how politics works (anywhere), except in the (very rare) case of 'conscience votes'.
I have recently written to the Greens, pointing out the apparent inconsistency of expressing "solidarity" with Thalidomide victims and seeking "justice, recognition and ongoing support" for them as demonstrated in https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-solidarity-thalidomide-survivors but continuing to vote down the idea of even finding out what is happening in Australia now with (often mandatory) Covid pandemic responses.
Indeed, Rebekah. It’s complex and multi-factorial, I agree, which is precisely why the question demands a disciplined and independent inquiry. Whether we will ever get one is of course questionable. Two major issues, both in NYC and WA are the veracity of the PCR testing used to determine the presence of Covid-19 (which many have questioned, especially as CT values are almost never published) and the attribution of deaths to Covid (‘from Covid’ or ‘with Covid’?) Recent dodgy-looking processes to redefine ‘excess deaths’ by the ONS and others are another issue. Frankly, it is difficult to be optimistic that, even if it is decided to conduct a Senate inquiry, it will be constructed well enough to get to the bottom of all the factors. My hunch is that the stakes are too high and there are too many vested interests to allow that to happen, especially now that we’ve changed federal governments with no discernible change of ‘pandemic’ direction. Unfortunately.
Some more good news, eh? :)
💪💪💪
I don’t understand why there are such large differences between states, shown in the ABS-derived map. If the excess deaths are a consequence of vaccination - as many suspect, but this requires a proper independent inquiry to determine - why should there be such large state differences, when all states were hooked on to the same national narrative for vaccination (In a nutshell, vaccinate almost everybody as often as possible)? Something else is needed to explain this phenomenon.
I noticed this too Barry. Even if you consider the Covid vaccines to be more lethal and damaging than your average medicine, I don't think they can account for the entirety of excess deaths by any stretch. WA is a good example. Excess deaths started to increase in 2021, with on-off lockdowns and with 4 million doses of vaccination, but no Covid. In 2022, they continued to increase and that is when we had most of our covid deaths. You might guess that 2021 excess deaths had something to do with delayed care, stress and vaccinations, while 2022 was heavily impacted by Covid and its related illnesses (eg: bacterial pneumonia). Pure speculation of course, but it seems obvious that the cause would be multi-factorial.
Interesting reactions to the Qld ruling, reported by the ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/covid19-vaccine-frontline-worker-mandate-supreme-court-ruling/103517798
(Cross-posted on another Substack) Readers interested in excess deaths will find the studies of the excess deaths in New York in 2020 of interest. These are of course not attributable to adverse vaccine reactions, but are important because they were a major instrument of panic and over reaction in many countries, including Australia. https://pandata.org/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any-sense/
I am working on that as we speak ;)
One of the issues with the ruling is (I suspect) that Queensland has a Human Rights Act, but that is not the case for all states (e.g. WA does not have one) or nationally (there is no Commonwealth Act, as is regularly debated). Of course, the issues ought to be ethical and moral, not legal, but we live in a country under the 'rule of law'.
Good point Barry, thanks for this.
And, speaking of human rights, even in the absence of local legislation, this WCH brief offers an excellent overview of how such rights ought be preserved in the case of severe threats. Well worth a read. Clearly, we failed miserably last time, but should make sure we don't next time. (Letting WHO make the decisions is clearly an unaceptable strategy.)
https://open.substack.com/pub/worldcouncilforhealth/p/legal-brief-preventing-abuse-of-human-rights?