Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 452

Thread: Jacinda

  1. #421
    Join Date
    25th March 2004 - 17:22
    Bike
    RZ496/Street 765RS/GasGas/ etc etc
    Location
    Wellington. . ok the hutt
    Posts
    18,770
    No idea what you posted.

    Take sunscreen. The world will be a better place.
    I've been told. Dreaming`s free.
    Think I'll go, back to sleep.
    Everybody listen, voices in my head
    Everybody listen, do yours say, what mine says?

  2. #422
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    10,837
    Quote Originally Posted by F5 Dave View Post
    No idea what you posted.

    Take sunscreen. The world will be a better place.
    Pretty sure it was something about his mother marrying her cousin and his sister being dead sexy.
    Meh I have seen bigger tits on a jersey heifer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    I reminder distinctly .




    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  3. #423
    Join Date
    8th January 2005 - 15:05
    Bike
    Triumph Speed Triple
    Location
    New Plymouth
    Posts
    9,585
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Funny, I've traveled to quite a few places - never once have I had to prove my vaccination status at any country, only had to waive my Passport.

    If I was stopped at the border and asked for my Medical records, I'd probably tell them to piss off.
    This says two things: you are relatively young, this was a world wide thing. Also you have no understanding of how things work. Without an up to date vaccine certificate with the appropriate jabs for your destination, you would not have been permitted to board the 'plane. That appears to be making a comeback.

    I'd pay to watch you telling US Immigration officials to piss off.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post

    No, that's an outright lie.
    It's not a lie, I understood that to be the situation. If it's not it should be. It's still basically what we are talking about though, no vaccination, no school. Also I can remember being vaccinated at school. Every kid in every school in the country at the time would have been vaccinated. There may have been some idiot dissenting parents somewhere but I wouldn't have known about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    I've long been an advocate of Vaccinations, you will remember the discussions I had with Katman on this topic, at length.

    However, despite all that - I still hold that the Individual is sovereign - and even with the Measles Vaccine (where we have pretty conclusive evidence that with 90+% vaccination rates, no dead children and when those rates fall, we get fatalities), I cannot cross the line of allowing the Government to compel anyone to have a medical procedure done against their will.

    That is a line that I will not cross.

    And you are okay with this?
    As strange as it may seem I did not always find your discussions with Katman riveting reading.

    Congratulations on commencing the vaccination process. I think everybody should, but then I'm aware that for a whole variety of mostly spurious reasons some won't.

    I have to be OK with the Government compelling medical procedures, so do you. The Government already has the power to lock you up and jab you to whatever extent they feel necessary. They have that power under the Mental Health Act for one.

    There used to be laws permitting the detaining and treatment of people with an untreated contagious disease. Since we are better at adding new laws than removing old ones, I assume that law still applies. On the news this morning the Police are searching for a symptomatic woman to lock her up at the Jet Park, if she needs a jab she'll get it whether she wants it or not.

    Welcome to the real world.
    There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop

  4. #424
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    This says two things: you are relatively young, this was a world wide thing. Also you have no understanding of how things work. Without an up to date vaccine certificate with the appropriate jabs for your destination, you would not have been permitted to board the 'plane. That appears to be making a comeback.
    So was the Burning of women at the stake for Witchcraft, yet for some reason (something something liberal principles) we decided that this wasn't okay.

    I can remember travelling overseas before I needed a Passport, didn't need to prove my Vaccination status.

    I suspect that you might be referring to the effort to eliminate Small Pox or Polio. And a quick reminder - Small pox was both more contagious than Covid and unlike Covid (with a 98% survival rate), it had a survival rate closer to 70% - 1/3rd of all people that got Small Pox died.

    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    I'd pay to watch you telling US Immigration officials to piss off.
    I recently watched the video response by the South West Pilots - referencing the American principle of individual Liberty, something which still resonates - so it might not be as entertaining as you think.

    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    It's not a lie, I understood that to be the situation. If it's not it should be. It's still basically what we are talking about though, no vaccination, no school. Also I can remember being vaccinated at school. Every kid in every school in the country at the time would have been vaccinated. There may have been some idiot dissenting parents somewhere but I wouldn't have known about them.
    It's not the situation.
    No it shouldn't be the situation.

    I, also, remember getting Vaccinated at School. As will most likely my Children

    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    As strange as it may seem I did not always find your discussions with Katman riveting reading.

    Congratulations on commencing the vaccination process. I think everybody should, but then I'm aware that for a whole variety of mostly spurious reasons some won't.
    I think everyone should also (except those with conditions where a Vaccine could be dangerous), but I also think that mandates are a complete affront to personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

    And I further think that those who seek to use the Government to compel people to do something are morally and ethically corrupt.

    My argument has never been about the Vaccine itself - I think my most scathing critique is that I would have liked to have seen some long-term data first - but that given it's only administered in 1 or 2 doses (depending on the flavour), long-term effects are likely to be minimal.

    My argument has always been about the Cult-like mindset, the opposition to debate and discourse and the top-down dictates from the Government.

    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    I have to be OK with the Government compelling medical procedures, so do you. The Government already has the power to lock you up and jab you to whatever extent they feel necessary. They have that power under the Mental Health Act for one.
    Josef Mengele, Unit 731 - Yeah, I'm not OK with Governments compelling Medical procedures.

    The Mental Health act though is a different kettle of fish - since there are a number of quite significant hurdles to jump through - first and foremost - the Crown has the burden of proof that I'm not a Sane person.

    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    There used to be laws permitting the detaining and treatment of people with an untreated contagious disease. Since we are better at adding new laws than removing old ones, I assume that law still applies. On the news this morning the Police are searching for a symptomatic woman to lock her up at the Jet Park, if she needs a jab she'll get it whether she wants it or not.

    Welcome to the real world.
    I had a look up at that - I believe the Health act of 1957 only grants such powers for people entering New Zealand, not much is said about people already in NZ - admittedly, it was a skim read.

    But let's take this seriously - if there was an outbreak of a particularly virulent and deadly disease, some precautions can and should be taken - no one denies this. The governing principle should be that it should be the least restrictive possible and with the narrowest scope.

    Locking down the entire country for a single case in Auckland does not meet (in anyway) either of those 2 criteria.

    The fact that the South Island is still in Level 2 (despite no cases and no places of interest) does not meet either of those 2 criteria.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  5. #425
    Join Date
    3rd February 2004 - 08:11
    Bike
    1982 Suzuki GS1100GK, 2008 KLR650
    Location
    Wallaceville, Upper hutt
    Posts
    4,613
    Somewhere I have my vaccination document that I received as a member of the NZ Armed forces, about 1974-ish. If I can locate it I will post a pic for the non-believers. It lists all the vaccinations that the army gave me (and there was no option to decline, either) so the precedent of a government enforced mandatory vaccination program exists.
    When I went to Thailand in 1985 it was necessary to produce this document on leaving NZ and entering both Singapore and Thailand.
    If TDL talks about travelling without needing a passport it was either from NZ to Australia or maybe to Europe from Britain while it was in the EU
    it's not a bad thing till you throw a KLR into the mix.
    those cheap ass bitches can do anything with ductape.
    (PostalDave on ADVrider)

  6. #426
    Join Date
    14th June 2007 - 22:39
    Bike
    Obsolete ones.
    Location
    Pigs back.
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post

    I think everyone should also (except those with conditions where a Vaccine could be dangerous), but I also think that mandates are a complete affront to personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

    And I further think that those who seek to use the Government to compel people to do something are morally and ethically corrupt.
    You're entitled to your opinions but this argument sucks.

    When the hospitilisation of non vaccinated covid patients, who will be the majority, impacts the treatment of others with life threatening illness it's just selfish.

    Fair enough for you, you're vaccinated but still feel that others should have a choice.

    I feel that those who will not get vaccinated on spurious grounds should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation. Choices have consequences.
    Manopausal.

  7. #427
    Join Date
    8th January 2005 - 15:05
    Bike
    Triumph Speed Triple
    Location
    New Plymouth
    Posts
    9,585
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by pete376403 View Post
    Somewhere I have my vaccination document that I received as a member of the NZ Armed forces,
    I'm jealous, my plan was to make a souvenir of mine too. There was space for just one more jab, it was almost completely full. Unfortunately I was unabe to souvenir it as it was destroyed. Therein hangs a tale but...
    There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop

  8. #428
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by george formby View Post
    You're entitled to your opinions but this argument sucks.

    When the hospitilisation of non vaccinated covid patients, who will be the majority, impacts the treatment of others with life threatening illness it's just selfish.

    Fair enough for you, you're vaccinated but still feel that others should have a choice.

    I feel that those who will not get vaccinated on spurious grounds should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation. Choices have consequences.
    "I feel that those who ride without leathers should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation."
    "I feel that those who smoke cigarettes should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation."
    "I feel that those who injure themselves due to alcohol consumption should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation."

    I mean, I could go on and list all the social and medical ills that are self-inflicted, that take up a disproportionate amount of time and effort in the Health care system.

    And I'll even partially agree that there's a moral argument about enforcing responsibility for poor choices - however all those people pay tax and the purpose of a socialized health care system is that at the point of care, there is no fee.

    See - from a Liberal position - I'm fine with people making choices that I don't like or agree with for themselves, using the fiat of force, via the Government to make someone else do what you want them to - I call that Tyranny and Oppression.

    I will also point that in English Common Law, there are very few Compulsions - there are plenty of things you can't do, but very few things you have to do.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  9. #429
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by pete376403 View Post
    If TDL talks about travelling without needing a passport it was either from NZ to Australia or maybe to Europe from Britain while it was in the EU
    Incorrect on both counts.

    Children under 16 could travel on their Parents passports before 1998, or at least this was true for British Passports (not sure about the rest of the world)

    That included France (before Maastricht) and to the US.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  10. #430
    Join Date
    8th January 2005 - 15:05
    Bike
    Triumph Speed Triple
    Location
    New Plymouth
    Posts
    9,585
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    "I feel that those who smoke cigarettes should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation."
    "I feel that those who injure themselves due to alcohol consumption should not be able to take precedent over others in need of hospitalisation."
    You seem consistently unable to understand how the world works. Some surgeons already refuse to operate on smokers, drunks, or the morbidly obese. The patient is required to correct the source of the problem before the surgeon will operate.
    There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop

  11. #431
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    You seem consistently unable to understand how the world works. Some surgeons already refuse to operate on smokers, drunks, or the morbidly obese. The patient is required to correct the source of the problem before the surgeon will operate.
    No Sir, you are playing a sleight of Hand.

    I'm going to ignore US based stories about this (since that is a Private system and the Private sector has a right of refusal.), I'm also going to point out that with the exception of one area in Yorkshire in 2016, this isn't the case that you are making it out to be.

    Right:

    Let's go with the Morbidly Obese one first (since this is easiest to demonstrate why your rebuttal is dishonest)

    Surgeons can tell a patient that they can't complete a procedure until they get under a certain Weight (this is common) - but it is NOT because the Surgeon is either prioritizing other patients or because the Surgeon is forcing them to accept responsibility for their actions.

    It's because with the increased weight, such a medical intervention could be Fatal (additional mass causes strain on things like sutures, wound sites- which could tear and rupture).

    Same is true for Smokers - The reason when (in some cases a Surgeon, on an individual level) may refuse to perform a procedure is because of the increased likelihood of fatal pulmonary complications, caused by the Smoking.

    Same for Drunk people (Alcohol can interfere with medications etc.)

    The decision to not operate on an individual is made due to increased risk of serious injury or death. It is not made solely on the concept on forcing the individual into taking responsibility or a position of requiring them to pay the additional cost for their life choices.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  12. #432
    Join Date
    8th January 2005 - 15:05
    Bike
    Triumph Speed Triple
    Location
    New Plymouth
    Posts
    9,585
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    No Sir, you are playing a sleight of Hand.

    I'm going to ignore US based stories about this (since that is a Private system and the Private sector has a right of refusal.), I'm also going to point out that with the exception of one area in Yorkshire in 2016, this isn't the case that you are making it out to be.

    Right:

    Let's go with the Morbidly Obese one first (since this is easiest to demonstrate why your rebuttal is dishonest)

    Surgeons can tell a patient that they can't complete a procedure until they get under a certain Weight (this is common) - but it is NOT because the Surgeon is either prioritizing other patients or because the Surgeon is forcing them to accept responsibility for their actions.

    It's because with the increased weight, such a medical intervention could be Fatal (additional mass causes strain on things like sutures, wound sites- which could tear and rupture).

    Same is true for Smokers - The reason when (in some cases a Surgeon, on an individual level) may refuse to perform a procedure is because of the increased likelihood of fatal pulmonary complications, caused by the Smoking.

    Same for Drunk people (Alcohol can interfere with medications etc.)

    The decision to not operate on an individual is made due to increased risk of serious injury or death. It is not made solely on the concept on forcing the individual into taking responsibility or a position of requiring them to pay the additional cost for their life choices.
    Nah. Semantics again. They are not being operated on because they are smokers, drunks, or obese. The fine detail you wish to discuss doesn't change anything, the result is the same
    There is a grey blur, and a green blur. I try to stay on the grey one. - Joey Dunlop

  13. #433
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by pritch View Post
    Nah. Semantics again. They are not being operated on because they are smokers, drunks, or obese. The fine detail you wish to discuss doesn't change anything, the result is the same
    It absolutely does.

    That 'Fine Detail' that you attempt to gloss over, just so happens to be the moral and ethical difference.

    Consider two smokers who are seeking a Lung Transplant.

    In the real world system, Both Smokers get assessed for the viability of the operation.

    Smoker A has a number of complications that if they operate, there's big increase in the chance of Death during or soon after the procedure.
    Smoker B does not have the complications.

    The Surgeon goes ahead with Smoker B, but not Smoker A.

    The determining factor is based solely on Medical risk of doing additional harm or causing death.

    What you are trying to suggest happen is that both Smokers get told:

    "Did you read the warning on the Cigarette Packet? You knew you shouldn't smoke - you played stupid games, now you win stupid prizes - Go away and die quietly so we can save our precious Resources for people who didn't make foolish decisions"

    That, categorically, does not happen. To Suggest otherwise or imply that it happens is, as I said earlier: Dishonest.

    Furthermore, if it were to happen - people like yourself would be up in arms about it (because we all know which group would be most affected by such a policy, and it would be called proof of institutional racism).

    Now, I could conceive of a system whereby people who made poor choices, would pay a premium to cover the artificial burden they place on the Healthcare system - in fact, we see that with Health Insurance, Life Insurance and in the US Private system.

    I can also agree that such a system would have some benefits (better allocation of resources, a built in mechanism for disincentivizing bad lifestyle choices etc.)

    But I still believe that a Socialized healthcare system is the best alternative - I don't begrudge my tax being paid so that Smokers can get a Lung Transplant - there's plenty of areas where we could cut spending (Middle Management, Diversity officers etc. etc.) and save masses of Tax payer funds before we even reach the cost of treatments.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  14. #434
    Join Date
    4th December 2009 - 19:45
    Bike
    2015 Honda VFR800X Cross Runner
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    ...

    But I still believe that a Socialized healthcare system is the best alternative ....
    Gosh, do my eyes deceive me ?

    So what's your view of charging for medicines, or precisely the pricing of medicines according to what the market will bear ?

    Cheers, Viking

  15. #435
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking01 View Post
    Gosh, do my eyes deceive me ?

    So what's your view of charging for medicines, or precisely the pricing of medicines according to what the market will bear ?

    Cheers, Viking
    I've always been pro-socialized Health Care - I believe that the net-public good (which cannot be measured) outweighs the net cost. Or to put it a different way:

    Having lots of healthy people able to work to the maximum of their ability creates enough surplus wealth that we can afford to keep them healthy.

    Now, charging for Medicines - that's a different question.

    In terms of the likes of Pharmac - it's certainly true that purchasing for an entire Country means that you are buying in Volumes that enable you to negotiate the best Price. It also means that for the Supplier - the Buyer is less likely to go bankrupt or 'go out of business', so it's a very secure revenue stream.

    So, for the majority of situations, it works great. Where a Pharmac type system fails is every other year or so, we get a news story about someone who has a rare condition and needs some expensive drug that Pharmac doesn't fund or that Pharmac doesn't have the Budget for or Pharmac isn't convinced of the efficiency of the drug.

    The question of Pricing Medicine, that's a different question (I'm sure someone is going to mention the guy that bought the company and then jacked the price up by like 1000%).

    I'm going to split my answer into 2 parts - the R&D side and the per-unit cost to manufacture.

    The per-unit cost is the simpler one to address - If we go with Paracetamol (as an example) and I setup a new company to make it (maybe with a new way manufacturing it), it's reasonable to say that the price should be something like cost+X% (so 50% markup for example is reasonable - always gotta double your money).

    R&D however is a different beast - I believe that the cost of the Covid Vaccine was around $6 Billion. How do you price for that? And more importantly - how do you price for the next big research project?

    Certainly I believe that those that are first to market deserve a Competitive Edge and I also believe that the Price should be such that for the estimated number of units sold, not only is the research cost accounted for, but there should be a percentage to fund future endeavors.

    To use a crude example - Imagine a disease that only affects one person on the entire planet, but the cost to develop the cure is $1 Billion, it would be right that the cost for that single shot of medicine to be more than $1 Billion.

    Now, let's assume that said disease is Fatal, you might say 'well, it's a single Dose, so just give it to them' - but that denies all the other research on other fatal diseases that could have been done for that $1 billion.

    The flipside is that the government confiscates your research and forces you to manufacture the drug for free - we'd call that Slavery.
    Or, they simple confiscate the research and let other people make it, thus disincentivizing anyone else from spending all the time and effort to innovate, leading to an inevitable decline - we'd call that the Soviet Union .

    TL;DR - Life isn't fair. If coming up with life saving drugs was easy, everyone would be doing it - but the reality is, it's very hard to do and so we incentivize the people that do it to do so in the form of giving them resources.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •