From what I understand, the decision reached is that human rights laws were transgressed, EVEN IF the injections had been a net life-saving intervention. (which of course they were not.)
"When a court is judicially reviewing a decision for unlawfulness under the HRA it does not reconsider a primary act or decision on the merits. The jurisdiction of the Court is ... to determine whether the act or decision is unlawful by reference to the human rights standards in the HRA, not to make a determination on the merits of the matter which is in substantive issue. Relief cannot be granted simply because the court takes a different view of the act or decision on the merits."
So, even if official health directions really had saved 14 or 18 million lives compared with the output of a computer model that merely extrapolated the embedded assumption that the vaccines saved lives to circularly find that the vaccines saved lives ...
AND even if covid had killed a similar number of unvaccinated people, which they did not because covid deaths were amplified by the use of ICD-10 codes intended for early warning of a possible new infection.
... and there were many other causes of death during 2020 and 2021, such as starvation due to economic lockdowns and suicide due to social lockdowns, and over-zealous application of drugs such as remdesivir and midazolam and intubated ventilators for people in hospitals.
EVEN so, our ethical rules developed over hundreds of years, are the rules. Those rules, by the way, are intended for protecting ordinary people not just against the few tyrannical low-empathy control-addicted psychopaths, but against the many well-meaning fools.
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death. To explain this requires a regression level analysis, which can take upwards of three months based on previous experience.”
If we are fortunate, we outlive our parents. In this fortunate case, we become responsible for caring for those who cared for us when we wore nappies. If vulnerability to a respiratory virus increases with age, inevitably, we may survive to care for our vulnerable parents.
In my case, I cared for my father-in-law, aged 87 at the time. So, his daughter and I took the obvious decision to develop the best-possible immunity to the prevailing virus, which was to catch and recover from it: natural immunity.
In a liberal democracy, it is ETHICAL to not prevent a person from choosing its own way to do no harm. It is UNETHICAL for a government to enforce its preferred way, ESPECIALLY if that way is unsafe and ineffective.
To clarify, I am NOT saying that if the injections had actually been effective and safe, that it would have been ethical to coerce people to accept them.
What I am saying is that it was ILLEGAL to require us to be injected to prevent transmission with a compound that was not designed, tested, or approved for preventing transmission.
And I am saying that coercion would have been unethical, even if the injections had been safe and effective.
Why?
We live in a liberal democracy. We do not live under the deep pile of collective autocracy. In a liberal democracy, individuals are free to act as we wish, subject to the duty to do no harm.
This means we are free to choose HOW we do no harm.
In fact, there were several options for doing no harm during the declared covid pandemic. We could, as a not-so-bizarre example, not visit Grandma when we had the sniffles. We could stay at home when we had symptoms. We could even engender the BEST POSSIBLE immunity by catching and recovering from the actual virus. We could enhance our immunity with supplements such as zinc and vitamin D3 (à la the late, revered, Dr Zelenko https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/treatment-protocol/).
Here is a transcript of Michael Gunner's press conference linked in the comment below:
"If you are anti-mandate, you are absolutely ant-vax. I don't care what your personal vaccination status is. If you support, champion, give a green light, give comfort to, support anybody who argues against the vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer, absolutely. Your personal vaccination status is utterly irrelevant. If you campaign against the mandate, if you campaign against people being vaccinated in vulnerable settings, teachers in classrooms, I'll be really clear, at that point in time, people are actually supporting the idea of a teacher being unvaccinated in a remote community classroom, with kids who can't be vaccinated. I reject that utterly, and I still reject it. And if you are out there in any way shape or form campaigning against this mandate, you are absolutely anti-vax. If you, say, pro-persuasion, stuff it, shove it. We are absolutely going to make sure that as many Territorials are vaccinated. That is our best protection against this thing. And if you look at the Doherty modelling that have come out since ... they say that if you double dose 80% of people in remote communities 5 and up, I think you'll see our vaccine mandate is absolutely crucial to protecting life, particularly aboriginal life. And I will never back away from supporting vaccines, and anyone out there who comes for the mandate, you are anti-vax. "
As impossible as it may be to believe this now, there really were political officials in Australia who mandated injections for the purpose of preventing transmission of covid, even though those injections had already been reported by the Australian regulator (TGA) to be NOT designed, tested, or approved for preventing transmission.
Now that we are all calmer, we can look again into his eyes. Do we really see reason and courage - or was it dogma and fear?
... you may get the feeling that many politicians, including in Australia, really did say the injections would protect others. And they appeared willing to override basic human rights to implement their injections by coercion and inaccurate messaging about the prospect of protecting others. And they seem to be quite confident without, evidently, support from the Public Assessment Reports.
https://maatsmethod.substack.com/p/015-qld-supreme-court-finds-vaccine/comments
A remarkable outcome. Thank you Clive Palmer!
From what I understand, the decision reached is that human rights laws were transgressed, EVEN IF the injections had been a net life-saving intervention. (which of course they were not.)
"When a court is judicially reviewing a decision for unlawfulness under the HRA it does not reconsider a primary act or decision on the merits. The jurisdiction of the Court is ... to determine whether the act or decision is unlawful by reference to the human rights standards in the HRA, not to make a determination on the merits of the matter which is in substantive issue. Relief cannot be granted simply because the court takes a different view of the act or decision on the merits."
So, even if official health directions really had saved 14 or 18 million lives compared with the output of a computer model that merely extrapolated the embedded assumption that the vaccines saved lives to circularly find that the vaccines saved lives ...
AND even if covid had killed a similar number of unvaccinated people, which they did not because covid deaths were amplified by the use of ICD-10 codes intended for early warning of a possible new infection.
... and there were many other causes of death during 2020 and 2021, such as starvation due to economic lockdowns and suicide due to social lockdowns, and over-zealous application of drugs such as remdesivir and midazolam and intubated ventilators for people in hospitals.
EVEN so, our ethical rules developed over hundreds of years, are the rules. Those rules, by the way, are intended for protecting ordinary people not just against the few tyrannical low-empathy control-addicted psychopaths, but against the many well-meaning fools.
https://hatchardreport.com/open-letter-to-the-hon-dr-shane-reti-new-zealand-minister-of-health/
HNZ00013886 says:
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death. To explain this requires a regression level analysis, which can take upwards of three months based on previous experience.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1755652047515308155
The trials continue ... Kiev
If we are fortunate, we outlive our parents. In this fortunate case, we become responsible for caring for those who cared for us when we wore nappies. If vulnerability to a respiratory virus increases with age, inevitably, we may survive to care for our vulnerable parents.
In my case, I cared for my father-in-law, aged 87 at the time. So, his daughter and I took the obvious decision to develop the best-possible immunity to the prevailing virus, which was to catch and recover from it: natural immunity.
In a liberal democracy, it is ETHICAL to not prevent a person from choosing its own way to do no harm. It is UNETHICAL for a government to enforce its preferred way, ESPECIALLY if that way is unsafe and ineffective.
To clarify, I am NOT saying that if the injections had actually been effective and safe, that it would have been ethical to coerce people to accept them.
What I am saying is that it was ILLEGAL to require us to be injected to prevent transmission with a compound that was not designed, tested, or approved for preventing transmission.
And I am saying that coercion would have been unethical, even if the injections had been safe and effective.
Why?
We live in a liberal democracy. We do not live under the deep pile of collective autocracy. In a liberal democracy, individuals are free to act as we wish, subject to the duty to do no harm.
This means we are free to choose HOW we do no harm.
In fact, there were several options for doing no harm during the declared covid pandemic. We could, as a not-so-bizarre example, not visit Grandma when we had the sniffles. We could stay at home when we had symptoms. We could even engender the BEST POSSIBLE immunity by catching and recovering from the actual virus. We could enhance our immunity with supplements such as zinc and vitamin D3 (à la the late, revered, Dr Zelenko https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/treatment-protocol/).
Here is a transcript of Michael Gunner's press conference linked in the comment below:
"If you are anti-mandate, you are absolutely ant-vax. I don't care what your personal vaccination status is. If you support, champion, give a green light, give comfort to, support anybody who argues against the vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer, absolutely. Your personal vaccination status is utterly irrelevant. If you campaign against the mandate, if you campaign against people being vaccinated in vulnerable settings, teachers in classrooms, I'll be really clear, at that point in time, people are actually supporting the idea of a teacher being unvaccinated in a remote community classroom, with kids who can't be vaccinated. I reject that utterly, and I still reject it. And if you are out there in any way shape or form campaigning against this mandate, you are absolutely anti-vax. If you, say, pro-persuasion, stuff it, shove it. We are absolutely going to make sure that as many Territorials are vaccinated. That is our best protection against this thing. And if you look at the Doherty modelling that have come out since ... they say that if you double dose 80% of people in remote communities 5 and up, I think you'll see our vaccine mandate is absolutely crucial to protecting life, particularly aboriginal life. And I will never back away from supporting vaccines, and anyone out there who comes for the mandate, you are anti-vax. "
https://twitter.com/i/status/1523848353972334592
https://twitter.com/i/status/1523848353972334592
This was Michael Gunner, NT.
As impossible as it may be to believe this now, there really were political officials in Australia who mandated injections for the purpose of preventing transmission of covid, even though those injections had already been reported by the Australian regulator (TGA) to be NOT designed, tested, or approved for preventing transmission.
Now that we are all calmer, we can look again into his eyes. Do we really see reason and courage - or was it dogma and fear?
If you look at the series of short clips here ...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1744642009988841701
... you may get the feeling that many politicians, including in Australia, really did say the injections would protect others. And they appeared willing to override basic human rights to implement their injections by coercion and inaccurate messaging about the prospect of protecting others. And they seem to be quite confident without, evidently, support from the Public Assessment Reports.