Thread: Corona Virus

Originally Posted by bob10

20,856 tests done in the 24 hours to Wednesday morning, one positive result. 20,000 tests each day for the rest of the week would be good, you would have to think a proper cross section of the community in Brisbane would be covered with these numbers, and a more confident prediction of COVID in our community able to be given. Yet it seems that the more we hear about this virus, the less we know. Did you hear about the Millionaire from Melbourne who loaded his family on his luxury yacht, stopped in at a few places on the NSW coast on the way, and now they are being made to quarantine in a hotel at their own expense. [ they probably own the hotel ]

Earlier, Queensland Health said new information had been provided that indicated the owner of the Lady Pamela had obtained an exemption to the state’s border restrictions based on incomplete information.NSW police are also investigating the sailing trip. NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller told the ABC the state’s emergency operations controller, Deputy Commissioner Gary Worboys, would look into the issue. And then this;

In other border issues, a 50-year-old woman has been fined after travelling to Mackay from Tweed Heads.
She reportedly had a border pass allowing her to travel within the NSW-Queensland border bubble region.
The woman also faces several driving charges. She will appear in the Mackay Magistrates Court on September 15.

Some people just don't get it.

The superyacht's owners did not declare they stopped at Yamba before coming into the Gold Coast, I read.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

I fully understand Andrew, I used to volunteer with young people with ABIs. A poor, momentary decision can lead to a lifetime of regret. One fellow was the same age as me, he could remember the tappet settings of his car but not what or if he had lunch.
Ninety percent of these poor buggers were young men involved in traffic crashes.

I know both a jogger and a cyclist who sustained serious head injuries - both lost their careers. One can't remember anything from one minute to the next, the other became uncharacteristically aggressive.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Not if, like my mother in law, you're sitting behind me and I'm between you and the windscreen.

[Edit: in some countries it's optional to wear a seatbelt in the back seat of a car. Because the laws of physics don't apply there.]

i think your example is valid altho a little extreme.

Originally Posted by ozscott

Not if you lose control under harsh deceleration and cornering - then you can endanger others also.

Cheers

true but thats got nothing to do with a seatbelt.

Originally Posted by ozscott

Absolutely Ian. I have acted in many cases where those not wearing seatbelts or helmets end up needing 24 hour care for the rest of their lives (huge costs to them obviously in terms of what they have lost- some have no insight so those people don't know what they have lost, and their families) at massive cost to the tax payer diverting funds that might better have been used elsewhere. Eevo your arguments just don't stack up.

Cheers

you're not grasping the logic here.
its a personal risk. thats is different from the consequences.

if your argument was true, motorbikes would be banned due to lack of seatbelts.

Originally Posted by Eevo

true but thats got nothing to do with a seatbelt.

Your missing my point. Often accidents are avoided through harsh braking and swerving. Do that without a seatbelt and you often wind up not remaining in proper control of the vehicle. You literally slip out of the tight position the seat belt would hold you in has you been wearing it.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Eevo

you're not grasping the logic here.
its a personal risk. thats is different from the consequences.

if your argument was true, motorbikes would be banned due to lack of seatbelts.

I just don't accept your version of logic. Therein lies our difference on the issue. Getting back to the point (no pun intended)
Governments legislate against personal freedom and, practically speaking, choice all the time. Involuntary acute mental health assessment and treatment is but one example. If there is enough of a threat to people who can't make proper choices for themselves or a threat to the national interests (people as a collective and tbe country as a whole) then governments have a history of legislating to remove personal choice.

Cheers

Originally Posted by ozscott

I just don't accept your version of logic. Therein lies our difference on the issue. Getting back to the point (no pun intended)
Governments legislate against personal freedom and, practically speaking, choice all the time. Involuntary acute mental health assessment and treatment is but one example. If there is enough of a threat to people who can't make proper choices for themselves or a threat to the national interests (people as a collective and tbe country as a whole) then governments have a history of legislating to remove personal choice.

Cheers

yes i agree, where do you draw the line of what personal freedoms to remove? simply put, where i draw the line is in a different place to you.