All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which, if you draw a Venn diagram, occupies the same space as conspiracy theorists. Unless of course you can actually give evidence of and detail the ulterior motives



Yup, Qantas are looking into potentially changing their policy to only take vaccinated travelers on international flights. Makes sense. It's also highly likely that as the virus abates this would be reversed.

It's not highly likely. In fact it's likely that it will remain in place. The logic being that anyone not vaccinated is a risk.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's a bad generalisation. It depends entirely on the situation. Again, you seem to be trying to paint everything with the same brush.



Yes, they were renewed because of repeated terrorist attacks and plots. There is still wide public support for the measures (at some points between 80% and 90% of French people supporting it)

Why are the powers used against people with no links to terrorism. Why are they used against environmentalists and trade unionists?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's not highly likely. In fact it's likely that it will remain in place. The logic being that anyone not vaccinated is a risk.

You seem to have a prevailing view in which you think measures against the virus will be permanent, without explaining any proper reasoning behind.

Once the vaccines take effect and the virus really drops down to almost negligent levels there would be little reason to keep such a measure. Conversely, if the virus continued to circulate and cause issues, then such a measure could stay for as long as that was the situation. It remains to be seen whether this one airliner will adopt this policy or whether other airlines will and to what extent. Everything is case-by-case.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why are the powers used against people with no links to terrorism. Why are they used against environmentalists and trade unionists?

Because they used them. When anti-terrorism measures were introduced post-911, some of those were used during the financial crisis. **** happens.

This is why there are concerns in France about the emergency measures, that has to be weighed against the benefits to public safety. Not everything is black/white.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm not "so accepting of social controls", I support common sense measures.



That makes utterly no sense. You seem to be guided by some sort of over-arching world view, rather than looking at each situation objectively and case by case.

That's rich coming from you. Someone expresses doubt about certain reports of an event and you cast your net over a plethora of conspiracy theories such as moon landings, chemtrails, etc in response. So much for sticking to the case in point.


And I'm not guided by some sort or overarching world-view. There are many measures implemented in response to crises that have turned out to have been the wise choice and paid dividends. All seater, all tickets footballs matches to reduce crowd violence. Strict gun control in Australia in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre. Mandatory seat belt and drink driving laws.

Tea drinker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because they used them. When anti-terrorism measures were introduced post-911, some of those were used during the financial crisis. **** happens.

This is why there are concerns in France about the emergency measures, that has to be weighed against the benefits to public safety. Not everything is black/white.

Given the rate at which France manufactured Jihadi's in Libya, broke the state so there were no meaningful borders, then just accepted anyone who presented themselves, same in Germany. Hundreds dead across the EU from Jihadi's, some home grown many imported. I'd have to scoff at the idea that EU/NATO have public health as first concern. It's like saying the Catholic church put children first. The whole open borders thing is just a "right on" photo opportunity. EU worked with terrorists (KLA) in Kosovo to arm and train the insurrection. Many terrorists in Syria were armed and trained by various US agencies. Terrorist word is about as overplayed as racist at this point

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You seem to have a prevailing view in which you think measures against the virus will be permanent, without explaining any proper reasoning behind.

Once the vaccines take effect and the virus really drops down to almost negligent levels there would be little reason to keep such a measure. Conversely, if the virus continued to circulate and cause issues, then such a measure could stay for as long as that was the situation. It remains to be seen whether this one airliner will adopt this policy or whether other airlines will and to what extent. Everything is case-by-case.

Therein lies the rub. Define a crisis that has no tangible end date, deliberately vague and then there's no need to demarcate that end date OR to abolish measures put in place to confront it.


I already gave you an example of a temporary measure (France) that has been kept in place permanently. Your response to that was that terrorism is an ongoing threat so these emergency powers are necessary. I asked why these powers were increasingly used to curtail the rights of people who have nothing to do with terrorism but you ignored that question, conveniently.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That's rich coming from you. Someone expresses doubt about certain reports of an event and you cast your net over a plethora of conspiracy theories such as moon landings, chemtrails, etc in response. So much for sticking to the case in point.

If that's your take-away then you need to reread my post.

There are many measures implemented in response to crises that have turned out to have been the wise choice and paid dividends. All seater, all tickets footballs matches to reduce crowd violence. Strict gun control in Australia in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre. Mandatory seat belt and drink driving laws.

Correct.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because they used them. When anti-terrorism measures were introduced post-911, some of those were used during the financial crisis. **** happens.

This is why there are concerns in France about the emergency measures, that has to be weighed against the benefits to public safety. Not everything is black/white.

And that's your answer?


"Because they used them" ?
"Shit happens" ?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Therein lies the rub. Define a crisis that has no tangible end date, deliberately vague and then there's no need to demarcate that end date OR to abolish measures put in place to confront it.

You're doing it again, you trying to attribute nefarious intent behind decision-making.

Why do you think Qantas are proposing allowing only passengers who are Covid vaccinated on their international flights? The answer is straightforward

When/if the Covid threat disappears, why would they keep such a measure? The answer is straightforward

There's no agenda here apart from passenger safety, general safety and more people getting on planes.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And that's your answer?


"Because they used them" ?
"Shit happens" ?

Yes it is.

You still don't seem to be grasping basic points here

Does France have emergency measures against terrorism? Yes
Why? because there have been multiple terrorist attacks
But these measures have been used in other non-terrorist situations? Yes
But that's bad right? It's debatable, depends on each situation.

But what about Qantas airline measures? French anti-terrorist emergency laws have nothing to do with Qantas anti-virus measures
But if the French renewed their measures surely Qantas will do the same? No, the two issues are completely different

Again, you are operating to a narrative view rather than a view of the individual situation.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're doing it again, you trying to attribute nefarious intent behind decision-making.

Why do you think Qantas are proposing allowing only passengers who are Covid vaccinated on their international flights? The answer is straightforward

When/if the Covid threat disappears, why would they keep such a measure? The answer is straightforward

There's no agenda here apart from passenger safety, general safety and more people getting on planes.

If they risked people getting on their flights when no vaccine existed then why would they all of a sudden demand that once a vaccine was developed that nobody without that vaccine be allowed to fly?

Why weren't all flights grounded and nobody allowed to fly?



Do you see the logic here?


If it's so dangerous to have a non-vaccinated person on the plane then why is/was it perfectly fine to have a plane full of non-vaccinated people up until the point that a vaccine was produced?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If they risked people getting on their flights when no vaccine existed then why would they all of a sudden demand that once a vaccine was developed that nobody without that vaccine be allowed to fly?

Because the situation has changed.

Why weren't all flights grounded and nobody allowed to fly?

Because we didn't know the full severity of the virus for someone to make the extraordinary call to ground all aircraft - which has a huge economic cost. These decisions are not made lightly. They also depend on the situation, a situation that was constantly changed as the virus spread and we learned more about it.

Do you see the logic here?

No offense, but you aren't displaying it in some of these responses

If it's so dangerous to have a non-vaccinated person on the plane then why is/was it perfectly fine to have a plane full of non-vaccinated people up until the point that a vaccine was produced?

It wasn't "safe", its just that at that stage of the virus air travel was happening. As it spread and became more prominent it became obvious that air travel wasn't feasible.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because the situation has changed.



Because we didn't know the full severity of the virus for someone to make the extraordinary call to ground all aircraft - which has a huge economic cost. These decisions are not made lightly. They also depend on the situation, a situation that was constantly changed as the virus spread and we learned more about it.



No offense, but you aren't displaying it in some of these responses



It wasn't "safe", its just that at that stage of the virus air travel was happening. As it spread and became more prominent it became obvious that air travel wasn't feasible.

DJ, you're just making it up as you go along.


First it was



"Because they did it, sh*t happens"


Now it's


"Because the situation has changed".


What has changed? Was the virus less deadly last week, last month, last April, than it is now?


It was ok to allow people to fly on Qantas for the last 9 months but now all of a sudden they can't unless they have taken a vaccine?


What changed exactly?


If it is so dangerous to allow a non-vaccinated person on a Qantas flight then why was it ok to let a whole planeload of them on up until now?

And you mention "huge financial cost". So it's ok to gamble with public health so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line? Is that what you're saying?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

DJ, you're just making it up as you go along.


First it was



"Because they did it, sh*t happens"

That was in reference to your French example.

Now it's


"Because the situation has changed".

And that's in reference to the Covid situation. They were different examples and situations.

What has changed? Was the virus less deadly last week, last month, last April, than it is now?

Yes. There was far less people with the virus in e.g. Feb, than in April. The situation was constantly changing. We have had pandemics before, e.g. SARS, MERS, when these were detected, the world didn't just decide to shut down flights everywhere. That would not have been feasible.

As a pandemic evolves (or doesn't) then decisions are made relative to the situation. The situation wasn't as serious in February. It became more serious in March and April.

This is why, for example, we weren't all sent home from our offices in February, but many of us were sent home in March/April as it became more serious.

Likewise, when we first heard of the virus in China, it would have been absurd to stop all international flights. However as the virus became more and more serious, it meant that (step by step) flights were decreased and eventually most air travel stopped.

As the situation changes and evolves, measures are taken.

It was ok to allow people to fly on Qantas for the last 9 months but now all of a sudden they can't unless they have taken a vaccine?


What changed exactly?

A vaccine is about to become available. International air travel is almost non-existent and there is low public confidence. Airlines want to kick-start air travel again and one of the measures to increase confidence is to possibly introduce a measure whereby people need to be vaccinated to fly.

If it is so dangerous to allow a non-vaccinated person on a Qantas flight then why was it ok to let a whole planeload of them on up until now?

A vaccine wasn't available. It's a measure based on the situation changing.

And you mention "huge financial cost". So it's ok to gamble with public health so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line? Is that what you're saying?

No. There's a balance. An airline needs to balance making money with keeping passengers safe.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That was in reference to your French example.



And that's in reference to the Covid situation. They were different examples and situations.



Yes. There was far less people with the virus in e.g. Feb, than in April. The situation was constantly changing. We have had pandemics before, e.g. SARS, MERS, when these were detected, the world didn't just decide to shut down flights everywhere. That would not have been feasible.

As a pandemic evolves (or doesn't) then decisions are made relative to the situation. The situation wasn't as serious in February. It became more serious in March and April.

This is why, for example, we weren't all sent home from our offices in February, but many of us were sent home in March/April as it became more serious.

Likewise, when we first heard of the virus in China, it would have been absurd to stop all international flights. However as the virus became more and more serious, it meant that (step by step) flights were decreased and eventually most air travel stopped.

As the situation changes and evolves, measures are taken.



A vaccine is about to become available. International air travel is almost non-existent and there is low public confidence. Airlines want to kick-start air travel again and one of the measures to increase confidence is to possibly introduce a measure whereby people need to be vaccinated to fly.



A vaccine wasn't available. It's a measure based on the situation changing.



No. There's a balance. An airline needs to balance making money with keeping passengers safe.

You still haven't answered the question.


That question being:


Why would a carrier allow people on board last week, when they won't let them on board when a vaccine is available and the passengers haven't taken it?


I don't buy your "sh1t happens, things change" BS.


Now you may quite possibly demand from me "What's your explanation? Because these are the facts and if you don't like them then fcuk you!" And that's fine if that's the avenue you wish to follow.


It still doesn't mean I should explain to you why Qantas insists on vaccinated passengers and won't allow non-vaccinated passengers when just last week all were allowed.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why would a carrier allow people on board last week, when they won't let them on board when a vaccine is available and the passengers haven't taken it?

I have answered. Because a vaccine isn't available now. When it does become available it might be required for international passengers.

I don't buy your "sh1t happens, things change" BS.

You clearly don't understand the point.

Now you may quite possibly demand from me "What's your explanation? Because these are the facts and if you don't like them then fcuk you!" And that's fine if that's the avenue you wish to follow.

It still doesn't mean I should explain to you why Qantas insists on vaccinated passengers and won't allow non-vaccinated passengers when just last week all were allowed.

If someone can't understand something, no one can help them with that.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I have answered. Because a vaccine isn't available now. When it does become available it might be required for international passengers.



You clearly don't understand the point.





If someone can't understand something, no one can help them with that.

Why could they fly BEFORE the vaccine?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why could they fly BEFORE the vaccine?

Because it wasn't a factor. There was no vaccine available right now, so people just took the Covid risk

Now with a vaccine on the horizon, an airline company is trying to remove that Covid risk entirely from international flights (which are sensitive because they can spread Covid cases to other countries)

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because it wasn't a factor. There was no vaccine available right now, so people just took the Covid risk

Now with a vaccine on the horizon, an airline company is trying to remove that Covid risk entirely from international flights (which are sensitive because they can spread Covid cases to other countries)

But it IS a factor. What are you trying to make up or justify here, DJ.?


Your words:


"Now with a vaccine on the horizon, an airline company is trying to remove that Covid risk entirely from international flights (which are sensitive because they can spread Covid cases to other countries"


But then WHY were people allowed to fly in the first place?



And if, as you say, an airline was / is trying to remove a risk then why fly at all if the risk was so great?



If Qantas allowed people to fly on their planes last week or last month, then why are they not allowing people to fly on their planes next week or next month unless they have taken a vaccine?


What is the danger next month that didn't exist last month?


It's not a difficult question.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

But it IS a factor.

No.

It wasn't a factor before because we didn't have a vaccine. Therefore airlines couldn't make it a policy to have taken the vaccine. We will have a vaccine in the future, therefore they can.

Therefore this airline clearly believes a group of vaccinated people are more likely to fill their planes, than unvaccinated people who are not presently filling their planes. This stuff is not complicated and it's nobodies problem if you can't understand it

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

But then WHY were people allowed to fly in the first place?

This has been explained to you.

As the pandemic got worse, more people stopped flying. The situation right now is that not many people are flying (due to the risk), and also due to changing situations in countries.

However, now that a vaccine will become available, one airline has had the idea of having flights require the vaccine in order to fill planes again. They think that will build confidence in the public in flying again. They might do it, they might not. It might work, it might not

Jesus christ, I'm sorry but if you can't understand that it's no one's fault

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This has been explained to you.

As the pandemic got worse, more people stopped flying. The situation right now is that not many people are flying (due to the risk), and also due to changing situations in countries.

However, now that a vaccine will become available, one airline has had the idea of having flights require the vaccine in order to fill planes again. They think that will build confidence in the public in flying again. They might do it, they might not. It might work, it might not

Jesus christ, I'm sorry but if you can't understand that it's no one's fault

So you're saying that the stipulation to have only vaccinated passenger is actually an enticement to attract passengers?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So you're saying that the stipulation to have only vaccinated passenger is actually an enticement to attract passengers?

The airline company does.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The airline company does.

What's your source for this?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What's your source for this?

The airline.

Have you bothered to read anything about this?

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The airline.

Have you bothered to read anything about this?

Yes I have and I haven't seen any statement from Qantas that they were requiring passengers to be vaccinated in order to entice them to fly.

namloc1980

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Yes I have and I haven't seen any statement from Qantas that they were requiring passengers to be vaccinated in order to entice them to fly.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-55048438

ShatterAlan

namloc1980 wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-55048438

Where in that article does it say that Qantas announced that they are introducing the vaccination requirement in order to entice people to fly with them?

namloc1980

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Where in that article does it say that Qantas announced that they are introducing the vaccination requirement in order to entice people to fly with them?

The Qantas CEO said it is coming. That is what I presume the other poster was referring to. Do you think the CEO is lying?