> Australians have been barred from visiting a dying parent in hospital, blocked from seeing a new grandchild and forbidden from having a wedding. Should they accept that a tennis star gets the leeway they were denied?
No, they should not have accepted being barred perhaps. When you are oppressed just insisting no other one is treated justfully (the way the court decided in accordance with the law) is not a morally right solution. Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus in if he had it.
And by the way attending a wedding or a family meeting where people stand close, often in a small room, is quite different from just visiting a country or playing tennis (which doesn't require you to stand close to anybody, let alone in a room).
But what if most accepted those limitations, and while personally a disaster, found it on the other hand right to follow common sense and obey rules applying to everyone for the greater cause of society?
Rules applying to everyone the same is one of the basic foundations of a just society...
> Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus
No matter what you argue beyond, the epidemiological aspect is now not really the point here anymore. He faked stuff for entry one or the other way (I think it is even more likely he wasn't positive at all, but that the second test was just created so he counts as recovered, which was the requirement to get in if not vaccinated..) - so its good to see consequences on that.
> obey rules applying to everyone for the greater cause of society?
Sounds like communism. No cause can be considered greater than freedom.
> No matter what you argue beyond, the epidemiological aspect is now not really the point here anymore. He faked stuff
He should be investigated for faking then and expelled/imprisoned/fined by a court if evidence proves him guilty.
> second test was just created so he counts as recovered, which was the requirement to get in if not vaccinated
Just test him antibodies/T-cells + PCR and you know if a person used to be sick and recovered. No necessity for speculation here. Presence of immunity (which one only get through overcoming the sickness or a vaccine) is an objective thing. Is it not?
I would also suggest introducing a law sentencing people who falsely claim they are immune or expose others to a risk of being infected any other way to serve a sentence aiding in a hospital taking care of infected people.
> Sounds like communism. No cause can be considered greater than freedom.
Are you a 10 year old American from the Cold War? What you're saying is so comprehensively stupid I'm not entirely certain you're a real human.
No, that's not what communism is. If you want to know what it really is, go read "Das Kapital" and the "Communist Manifesto", you might learn a thing or two.
As for freedom... it's subjective. Absolute freedom is obviously incompatible with living in a society with other humans. And as we've seen time and again, most people value many things over freedom. Just look at Singapore and Rwanda, people there are happy with the prosperity and stability even if they're really not free on a lot of levels.
I see, but it's hard not to see a pandemic as a legitimate emergency and "higher causes"-invoking situation. It's not just a leader inventing a paper foreign subversive enemy out to get us, it's actually a thing which isn't hard to see and comprehend for oneself. I don't think any country's experience under communism is in any way applicable to the current situation.
There can be legitimate higher causes and situations when such are painfully obvious like overcoming pandemics. Nevertheless politicians (let alone masses incompetent in relevant subjects) can never be trusted as actually pursuing such as their primary aim. Appealing to such to justify anything always is a huge red flag (pun intended).
Politicians apparently are driven by the game theory and will do/say anything they believe will help them maximize their own power and safety (elections already mentioned) rather than sustainable wellbeing of the people.
Masses are driven by even more chthonic energies like unconscious xenophobia and value the chance to unite by any attribute to attack anybody they can (especially those enjoying a benefit they don't or trying to achieve a benefit they enjoy) above everything and will use any excuse they are given.
Simply saying politicians have already made a too many of suspiciously inefficient (and logically obviously futile even before proven such) decisions to trust them competent and benevolent and the mob will believe and shout any nonsense you tell them as long as this justifies them carrying torches and pitchforks.
Imagine president Trump, seeing himself loosing the elections and actually facing a real prison sentence risk, would have said nuking China is going to end the pandemics and we need to do so to make the whole world great again. I would bet the number of people supporting him would be way far from zero, all over the world.
Yeahyeah, freedom over all, and everything natural is also good, right ? :D
Please also reflect on the rhetorics you bring up here :D This is black and white painting, there are a lot of levels between..
No, they should not have accepted being barred perhaps. When you are oppressed just insisting no other one is treated justfully (the way the court decided in accordance with the law) is not a morally right solution. Also expelling a person who has already got in the country physically and attended a courts makes no sense from the epidemiological point of view - he has already brought the virus in if he had it.
And by the way attending a wedding or a family meeting where people stand close, often in a small room, is quite different from just visiting a country or playing tennis (which doesn't require you to stand close to anybody, let alone in a room).