@magpie_magic said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1459651) said:@nelson said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1459646) said:@magpie_magic said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1459637) said:@snake said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1459620) said:@magpie_magic said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1459614) said:I Fear life does not return to normal once vaccinated. Thats my point re relative vaccine efficacy, real risks of virus small vaccine risk.
Let's hope vaccinated persons have the right to protest at 80% vaccinated .
Maybe they will if they check in and keep the 4sq rule. That way the police can keep a dossier on people perhaps.
As a matter of interest how do people on here feel about authoritarian restrictions continuing past an 80% vaccinated rate? I always thought once this happens life reverts fully back to normal, everyone has had an opportunity to vaccinate .......But seems we hear oppression goes on .
Do vaccination status have to be updated every 6 months?
I would say yes .. have the booster and your status continues, this will be the case for a few years I reckon.
Well if this state of affairs continues for another few years even when vaccinated that is very sad indeed.
Seems "democracy " is changing sadly
No, it seems like that has nothing to do with democracy. If you don't like what they're doing then vote for someone else. Then when they turn around and do the same thing you can realise that you actually don't like democracy because the majority are against you.
So even if nearly everyone if vaccinated you feel restrictions must go on?
If everyone is against me that's fine. Just didn't think people want restrictions for many years without right to protest.
But then some may prefer authoritarian regimes. That's their choice.
Authoritarianism is not antithetical to democracy: some notorious authoritarian democracies have existed in the past.
I do think some level of restriction will still be required for some time, yes. If they immediately opened everything up back to normal at 80% then, with the level of infection currently circulating in the community, there would likely be a mass outbreak. The healthcare system would be overwhelmed and there would be unnecessary deaths. I fully expect them to take a staged approach to reducing restrictions with a view to minimising the risk of overload on healthcare.
If the restrictions were in place for arbitrary reasons then I would not be accepting of them. It doesn't seem to me like they are though: it seems to me like our medical community is largely indicating that this is what is required for the communal good.
I'm quite sure this government does **not** want restrictions in place any more than is necessary and it was that very attitude that perhaps contributed to this outbreak in the first place.