GeoffH

I agree... and I'm happy for that to be 'the line' (I realize others are not) but personally if you can isolate yourself from others at your employement then I'm ok with people not being vaccinated otherwise (with varying priorities) the employer should be able to include it as a condition of employment (at least for new employees or when contracts are renegotiated periodically).

The devil is in the details as the old saying says... and you're right (again). Personally I don't have a problem with requiring vaccination in front line health workers (that's already the case in Australia for the flu vaccine anyway) and I don't have a problem with similar requirements for those working in aged care facilities. There is a lesser (but still compeling) case that workers who will be exposed to many people during their working shift (supermarket check out people, bus drivers etc etc) should be protected by vaccination because they have the potential to infect large numbers

You make a good point, relaxing restrictions too early (when the vaccines protect the vaccinated but don't stop spread) will increase risk to the unvaccinated. I have zero sympathy for those who refuse to be vaccinated and get sick but people who couldn't access a vaccine are a different matter and society does owe a duty of care to them. As to vacination being required for certain jobs I don't have a problem with it because it comes down again the 'employers duty of care' under the law.

Australia has had various "Don't litter" campaigns since the 60's... this you tube link gives example of the various ads from early black and white ones to more modern ones from the 21st century.

I certainly don't think it is "ok for them because they are in charge" however I do think "it is ok for them because all of them are fully vaccinated". Vaccination doesn't fully protect against catching Covid but from what the information is saying it protects basically 100% against death and serious disease (if you have a normally functioning immune system). Given that and given that they're all vaccinated I don't have a problem with it. In fact the sooner that governments start relaxing restrictions for the fully vaccinated the better I think.

I do understand what you're saying and as far as it goes I agree with you and even with the courts there are different levels of proof required depending upon the type of case. A criminal case requires a higher level of proof than a civil case. I'm not sure about the definition there but in Oz a criminal trial conviction requires "beyond reasonable doubt" but a civil case is decided "on the balance of probabilities". A high profile case in the US some years back suggests it is similar there, for example the very high profile cases where OJ Simpson was found 'not guilty' at the criminal

This is a forum with members from around the world and if topics were restricted to just one country every time sombody referenced an example from their home country nothing related to the Philippines (which is what this forum is for) would ever be talked about. What is confusing me is why you're attempting to do that.

Who's nationality is relevant why? This is a Philippines based forum catering to expats from around the world after all.

That's purely an American thing... most of the rest of the world (including as I understand it in the Philippines) they are allowed to do it (and defining Twitter and Facebook as public utilities isn't something that's done in most of the rest of the world either).

They're not censoring people's right to free speech, they're censoring content upon their company owned servers (in a similar way to what a user of a business network would experience when using a work LAN).

That's 'malice' in the criminal meaning of the word, not the common useage. In criminal law, Malice indicates the intention, without justification or excuse, to commit an act that is unlawful. I have no basis to assume that's the case given that if there was a lab leak the lab would have been working under the auspices of the relevant local authorities... hence not malicious.

We should be well prepared against any strike they do undertake and many western democracies are increasing military spending as part of that preparation and we also need effective ways to counter the 'slicing techniques' that China has been using to expand influence as well. And the democracies of the world need to face other challenges from China as well, the economic coercian against Australia, the push into India, the claiming of the 9 dash area against international law, cyber attacks etc. Those and many others need effective responses. Is there anything I'd say makes it worth

As 'Hanlons Razor' says; 'Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.'

I do think it's unwise to back them into a corner. They would be forced to seek alternative supplies by force and that would place surrounding countries at risk, tie up western military forces in an unnecessary war and leave the door open for third parties like Russia to capitalize on the western countries engagement with China.

Whilst that is true that isn't a reason to not help those people, even more so if the end cost of helping them to be vaccinated is going to be less than the ongoing cost of helping them after they get sick from Covid and don't fully recover.