Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate • Hacker News Board

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#891

Post by switch007 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

mykmallett wrote: post #765

switch007 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The target will move once it hits 80%. This is so obvious I feel sorry for all of you/them

The target is moving indeed, it's going down. NSW didn't want to lock down at all, but had to.

> but had to

Why?

"Unvaccinated people in New South Wales could be barred from locations and denied movement freedoms even after the state achieves 80% double dose vaccination"

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/13/nsw-u...

> the premier, Gladys Berejiklian, warning vaccine-hesitant residents they will not be able to “let everybody else do the hard work and then turn up” for equal freedoms.

> “I just want to send the very strong message that don’t assume you’ll get everything that vaccinated people get at 80%.”

Vaccine apartheid. Enjoy ! I'm glad I visited long ago

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#892

Post by bernulli » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #735

iamthemonster wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Western Australia. I'm delighted with prevention of interstate Covid. The freedom to do whatever you want is pretty enjoyable to be honest, and not worrying that family members will die of Covid is even better.

Do you worry about family members in lockdowned states drinking themselves to death? In Canada lockdowns killed more under-65s than covid: https://tnc.news/2021/07/18/lockdowns-killed-more-canadians-...

Of course it did, exactly because there was a lockdown that prevented many COVID deaths.

If there hadn't been a lockdown, many more people would have died from COVID than now died from drinking. Sweden for example, famous for its non-lockdown, suffered 10 times as many COVID deaths than neighboring Norway with lock-down (and alcohol).

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#893

Post by fancy_hammer » Wed, Sep 15, 2021, 2:41 AM UTC

rainonmoon wrote: post #615

fancy_hammer wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a shame because Perth and even Melbourne used to have a relatively low cost-of-living and high quality-of-life. I honestly don't know how anyone does it now. The experience of living in Melbourne in 2000 as someone not on the property ladder is very different to now. In 2000 it was possible to be on the poverty line and still live within an easy bike ride of the CBD. Now everyone I know lives increasingly on t…

I'm at the age where a lot of friends are beginning to buy (in Melbourne). There's basically two classes: the people buying houses in the outer-inner-suburbs that would still be vastly outside their price range without massive help from both sets of parents; these buyers are unfailingly couples. And second, single friends buying without parental assistance, but buying off the plan apartments not much closer to the ci…

> the people buying houses in the outer-inner-suburbs that would still be vastly outside their price range without massive help from both sets of parents; these buyers are unfailingly couples.

I suspect there is a big difference between the long term wealth implications of buying a house vs buying an apartment. There are never going to be more houses in outer-inner-suburbs. There is going to be a constant supply of new apartments as we move towards higher density living.

People who have wealthy parents are in the best position to make better housing investments.

Re: Australia’s new mass surveillance mandate

#894

Post by Jedd » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:29 PM UTC

lsiebert wrote: post #889

Jedd wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so there's 249 pages of policy to read and then correlate, which is a bit beyond me. > ... universal health care, how strongly they are in favor of nuclear disarmament, gun control, etc As I understand it, US Democrats are keen on those three, and in Australia, we've already embraced all of those. Are you suggesting there's a policy mis-match, or that one of the two groups leans even more strongly towards these…

While many Democrats do support it, Biden doesn't support medicare for all.

Sure, and that's objectively a weird position to take for someone who appears to be as empathetic as he is.

But it (as you observe) does not reflect 'the party policies' - simply the current elected leader. And while that's obviously important, it doesn't necessarily define policy of either party of (current) administration.

The fact it's at odds with what the majority of the rest of the party would advocate speaks to my earlier claim / question.