6 ms·

Under Australia's "No Jab, No Pay" laws, families cannot receive government taxation benefits for their unvaccinated children. In addition, some states require

Under Australia's "No Jab, No Pay" laws, families cannot receive government taxation benefits for their unvaccinated children. In addition, some states require an up to date vaccination record to be enrolled in pre-school, kindergarten, and in some states, primary school. Interestingly, it was News Limited (parent company of Fox News) that championed these laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay

roenxi 4y ago
I have very mixed feelings about this policy. I don't want my government taking my money in taxes, then deploying it as welfare conditional on unrelated policies. Particularly because once the have this leverage they'll make more widespread use of it. Some (all, in fact) of the anti-vaxxers I know are extremely upstanding small businesspeople. I can imagine in the next pandemic that (1) the government will tax them heavily pre-pandemic (2) government shuts their business down by force and (3) refuses to support them unless they comply with a vaccination policy that they don't agree with. That seems a logical but perverse destination for this sort of policy that is both unfair and at odds with basic concepts of property, freedom and charity.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - rscho 4y ago
    You can't delete public health and expect unchanged levels of care individually. Health at the individual level very much depends on public health policies. Don't believe me? Have fun watching your newborn die from whooping cough!
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      Yes, it would have effects on people's health but those effects would be both positive and negative. They'd both have to be summed together, but even then, health isn't everything. A healthy society run by totalitarians is still a deeply unpleasant society to live in. Whooping cough vaccines and vaccines in general would still exist without public health. The difference is that it would be an individual decision to buy them, based on whether they believe it helps themselves and others, or not. It wouldn't be a government decision.
      - rscho 4y ago
        There are very few public health interventions that are deleterious to even a fraction of the population, because the prime directive is "first, do no harm" and that's a very much entrenched principle of public health. Regarding vaccines, I chose the whooping cough example on purpose. This vaccine is only 60% efficient. The risk of newborns being killed or gravely ill would be highly increased if used only at the individual level, including for a particular person choosing to vaccinate. Your view of risks and benefits involved is very much skewed by your overconfidence in individual medicine. It is widely known that poulation-level interventions aka public health are the most effective (e.g. the Cuban system).
        _heimdall 4y ago
        > the prime directive is "first, do no harm" and that's a very much entrenched principle of public health. Covid response made it clear that this directive went out the window. Practitioners in the medical industry may whole-heartedly believe and follow this goal, but public health is now much too political for it. Plenty of examples in the US. To name a few: Faucci's masking debacle New York City's handling of elderly patients during the peak of their outbreak approval of vaccines under the age of 5 after a study with only 30 participants Biden's holiday speech from the Oval Office attacking anyone who didn't get vaccinated Initial vaccine trials data bastardized by public health officials, claiming vaccines stop the spread when that was never tested. The list goes on, but public health has been made a political game driven by few who they know what's best and are willing to saw what they think will get compliance rather than sharing what is and isn't known and doing no harm by fostering another core principle of informed consent.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        fidgewidge 4y ago
        "This vaccine is only 60% efficient." How do you know? Because you were told by the same system that claimed Comirnaty was 95% effective? For those of us who generalize from public health in the COVID years to public health in general, why is that generalization wrong, in your view?
    - wmorgan 4y ago
      Whooping cough is a funny example, since most adults are in fact not vaccinated for it -- in the US anyway, the vaccination rate for pertussis is under 30%. The reason newborns aren't dying from whooping cough is not that we vaccinate everyone. Instead, we make the vaccine widely available for people who want it (I got my booster at one of my wife's ultrasounds), and we tell parents not to expose their newborns to anyone who isn't vaccinated, until the baby can get their own. So for whooping cough specifically, it really is up to the parents, and I would say more of an individual responsibility thing.
  - blumomo 4y ago
    Well elaborated! Thank you.
  - ImaCake 4y ago
    This is such a frustrating comment to read. There is plenty of debate in public health about what is and isn’t appropriate. A lot of effort is put into communicating the often confusing and oblique conclusions of biology in such a way that people will understand and also be willing to take actions that will help themselves. Covid was, predictably, a massive defeat for public health. Also, you may have noticed that there are not really any restrictions despite covid still being around. There are limits on that power, although I imagine you think that those limits should be in a different place.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > This is such a frustrating comment to read. There is plenty of debate in public health about what is and isn’t appropriate. Ordinarily. My dad and most of his friends are in the field, and they’re all smart, thoughtful people who tackle incredibly complex things like how to get third world villagers to use maternal health services when all they’ve ever known is midwives with no formal medical training. But they all somehow turned their brains off when COVID happened and started acting like parrots. And now they’re paying the price for that in terms of public trust. The public trust of lay people in experts of all stripes rests on following established processes and norms. When experts deviate from those, such as by concededly lying to the public about mask effectiveness, public trust evaporates. There is never any excuse that justifies that. When judges and prosecutors and police cut corners on process “because lives are at stake” large swaths of the public rightfully come to distrust the system. The same is true for public health or any other field.
      - ImaCake 4y ago
        Yeah I mostly agree with this. I hope we don’t repeat these mistakes but I suspect we will.
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      There are still restrictions. I named a big one in the comment already. Biden admin just extended the ban on foreign arrivals based on vaccine status for more months so gotta assume the ban will last until the Dems next lose the White House. That's a ban on a big fraction of the population of most countries. Other countries don't do that because it's pointless but still have some restrictions like mandatory masks in some contexts in Germany. During COVID I compared claims made by public health officials to the actual data their own agencies were publishing and so often they didn't match. Not just my perception. I have a friend, at the start of it all we often argued because I had already realized public health was corrupt, but he hadn't. I dropped the topic rather than try to convince him. Some months later we were drinking and he told me his views had changed, was now hard-core skeptical about it all. Changed because he did the same as me, watched a press conference by the government, got curious about something, went to the websites with that data and downloaded it. Found they didn't line up, that the government scientists and health minister were lying about what the numbers said. Then he admitted he'd been wrong to argue with me about it. Lots of people had experiences like that. Public health communication trying to make us "willing to take actions that will help ourselves" was always whatever would sound convincing in the moment, not what was true. So it's all worthless.
  - Demotio 4y ago
    You are saying a lot for just being very anti social, anti human etc. No a public health system is not totaliarism. A gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This also means that the individual might need to play a game they don't always like. That's how a good stable society works. And just because you are (I guess) in the position to pay for medical, your neighbor might not. What society would that be that you buy the kids vaccines for yours and your neighbor kids die? And frankly just because you made it so long on this planet is not just your archiement. It's the school system which exists because of everyone before you, the health system, the road and everything which allowed you to actually drive to your work, etc etc etc. You are also alive due to vaccines, due to regulations which forces parents to do health checkups, etc. The only reason you can use the internet is a stable functioning society. This independent dream of yours is arrogant and ignorant.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Many people including myself do not agree with this statement and view that statement itself as totalitarian It IS NOT the government role to take care of me. I do NOT need or want the government to provide that service In a free society the government is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Anything beyond that "night watchmen" framework and you go beyond free society into authoritarian and totalitarian governance
      - Demotio 4y ago
        It's not about you. It's about the society. And I'm fine if people don't like this but I already said what this is: antisocial.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        Absolutely not, infact believing government == social would be itself antisocial There is nothing social about government, government is force, government is coercion You can not claim to replace personal responsibility, community, family, etc with a system of governance that by its very nature achieves is objective exclusively by the threat of violence on a population as being the more "social" way to have a society Social societies are bound by a sense of community and voluntary action, not by government mandates and regulations enforced by police and regulators. Government is Anti-Social.
  - dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
    >Public health as a concept is one of unlimited totalitarianism. The public health community is made up of people who are comfortable with that. Thanks, you have summarized what was on my mind.
- philjohn 4y ago
  Except, can you point me to wher they've gone further and used this leverage for other things? The No Job, No Pay is old at this point.
justintime11 4y ago
This absolutely must be responded with "No Pay, No Taxes" When the government fails to provide services at all, taxation reaches an unacceptable level of violent theft.
- SangareEel 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ImaCake 4y ago
    Pretty sure this is just a racist comment. A quick look at the demographics data for Australia shows it to be overwhelmingly white european - even if we restrict ourselves to the White Australia Policy definitions.
    - SangareEel 4y ago
      Please capitalise White European
yucky 4y ago
> Interestingly, it was News Limited (parent company of Fox News) that championed these laws I don't think it's surprising that authoritarians like those at Fox News would support authoritarianism.

roenxi 4y ago

I have very mixed feelings about this policy. I don't want my government taking my money in taxes, then deploying it as welfare conditional on unrelated policies. Particularly because once the have this leverage they'll make more widespread use of it. Some (all, in fact) of the anti-vaxxers I know are extremely upstanding small businesspeople. I can imagine in the next pandemic that (1) the government will tax them heavily pre-pandemic (2) government shuts their business down by force and (3) refuses to support them unless they comply with a vaccination policy that they don't agree with. That seems a logical but perverse destination for this sort of policy that is both unfair and at odds with basic concepts of property, freedom and charity.

fidgewidge 4y ago
[flagged]
- rscho 4y ago
  You can't delete public health and expect unchanged levels of care individually. Health at the individual level very much depends on public health policies. Don't believe me? Have fun watching your newborn die from whooping cough!
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    Yes, it would have effects on people's health but those effects would be both positive and negative. They'd both have to be summed together, but even then, health isn't everything. A healthy society run by totalitarians is still a deeply unpleasant society to live in. Whooping cough vaccines and vaccines in general would still exist without public health. The difference is that it would be an individual decision to buy them, based on whether they believe it helps themselves and others, or not. It wouldn't be a government decision.
    - rscho 4y ago
      There are very few public health interventions that are deleterious to even a fraction of the population, because the prime directive is "first, do no harm" and that's a very much entrenched principle of public health. Regarding vaccines, I chose the whooping cough example on purpose. This vaccine is only 60% efficient. The risk of newborns being killed or gravely ill would be highly increased if used only at the individual level, including for a particular person choosing to vaccinate. Your view of risks and benefits involved is very much skewed by your overconfidence in individual medicine. It is widely known that poulation-level interventions aka public health are the most effective (e.g. the Cuban system).
      - _heimdall 4y ago
        > the prime directive is "first, do no harm" and that's a very much entrenched principle of public health. Covid response made it clear that this directive went out the window. Practitioners in the medical industry may whole-heartedly believe and follow this goal, but public health is now much too political for it. Plenty of examples in the US. To name a few: Faucci's masking debacle New York City's handling of elderly patients during the peak of their outbreak approval of vaccines under the age of 5 after a study with only 30 participants Biden's holiday speech from the Oval Office attacking anyone who didn't get vaccinated Initial vaccine trials data bastardized by public health officials, claiming vaccines stop the spread when that was never tested. The list goes on, but public health has been made a political game driven by few who they know what's best and are willing to saw what they think will get compliance rather than sharing what is and isn't known and doing no harm by fostering another core principle of informed consent.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - fidgewidge 4y ago
        "This vaccine is only 60% efficient." How do you know? Because you were told by the same system that claimed Comirnaty was 95% effective? For those of us who generalize from public health in the COVID years to public health in general, why is that generalization wrong, in your view?
  - wmorgan 4y ago
    Whooping cough is a funny example, since most adults are in fact not vaccinated for it -- in the US anyway, the vaccination rate for pertussis is under 30%. The reason newborns aren't dying from whooping cough is not that we vaccinate everyone. Instead, we make the vaccine widely available for people who want it (I got my booster at one of my wife's ultrasounds), and we tell parents not to expose their newborns to anyone who isn't vaccinated, until the baby can get their own. So for whooping cough specifically, it really is up to the parents, and I would say more of an individual responsibility thing.
- blumomo 4y ago
  Well elaborated! Thank you.
- ImaCake 4y ago
  This is such a frustrating comment to read. There is plenty of debate in public health about what is and isn’t appropriate. A lot of effort is put into communicating the often confusing and oblique conclusions of biology in such a way that people will understand and also be willing to take actions that will help themselves. Covid was, predictably, a massive defeat for public health. Also, you may have noticed that there are not really any restrictions despite covid still being around. There are limits on that power, although I imagine you think that those limits should be in a different place.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > This is such a frustrating comment to read. There is plenty of debate in public health about what is and isn’t appropriate. Ordinarily. My dad and most of his friends are in the field, and they’re all smart, thoughtful people who tackle incredibly complex things like how to get third world villagers to use maternal health services when all they’ve ever known is midwives with no formal medical training. But they all somehow turned their brains off when COVID happened and started acting like parrots. And now they’re paying the price for that in terms of public trust. The public trust of lay people in experts of all stripes rests on following established processes and norms. When experts deviate from those, such as by concededly lying to the public about mask effectiveness, public trust evaporates. There is never any excuse that justifies that. When judges and prosecutors and police cut corners on process “because lives are at stake” large swaths of the public rightfully come to distrust the system. The same is true for public health or any other field.
    - ImaCake 4y ago
      Yeah I mostly agree with this. I hope we don’t repeat these mistakes but I suspect we will.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    There are still restrictions. I named a big one in the comment already. Biden admin just extended the ban on foreign arrivals based on vaccine status for more months so gotta assume the ban will last until the Dems next lose the White House. That's a ban on a big fraction of the population of most countries. Other countries don't do that because it's pointless but still have some restrictions like mandatory masks in some contexts in Germany. During COVID I compared claims made by public health officials to the actual data their own agencies were publishing and so often they didn't match. Not just my perception. I have a friend, at the start of it all we often argued because I had already realized public health was corrupt, but he hadn't. I dropped the topic rather than try to convince him. Some months later we were drinking and he told me his views had changed, was now hard-core skeptical about it all. Changed because he did the same as me, watched a press conference by the government, got curious about something, went to the websites with that data and downloaded it. Found they didn't line up, that the government scientists and health minister were lying about what the numbers said. Then he admitted he'd been wrong to argue with me about it. Lots of people had experiences like that. Public health communication trying to make us "willing to take actions that will help ourselves" was always whatever would sound convincing in the moment, not what was true. So it's all worthless.
- Demotio 4y ago
  You are saying a lot for just being very anti social, anti human etc. No a public health system is not totaliarism. A gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This also means that the individual might need to play a game they don't always like. That's how a good stable society works. And just because you are (I guess) in the position to pay for medical, your neighbor might not. What society would that be that you buy the kids vaccines for yours and your neighbor kids die? And frankly just because you made it so long on this planet is not just your archiement. It's the school system which exists because of everyone before you, the health system, the road and everything which allowed you to actually drive to your work, etc etc etc. You are also alive due to vaccines, due to regulations which forces parents to do health checkups, etc. The only reason you can use the internet is a stable functioning society. This independent dream of yours is arrogant and ignorant.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >gov has the responsibility to take care of all people. This is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Many people including myself do not agree with this statement and view that statement itself as totalitarian It IS NOT the government role to take care of me. I do NOT need or want the government to provide that service In a free society the government is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Anything beyond that "night watchmen" framework and you go beyond free society into authoritarian and totalitarian governance
    - Demotio 4y ago
      It's not about you. It's about the society. And I'm fine if people don't like this but I already said what this is: antisocial.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        Absolutely not, infact believing government == social would be itself antisocial There is nothing social about government, government is force, government is coercion You can not claim to replace personal responsibility, community, family, etc with a system of governance that by its very nature achieves is objective exclusively by the threat of violence on a population as being the more "social" way to have a society Social societies are bound by a sense of community and voluntary action, not by government mandates and regulations enforced by police and regulators. Government is Anti-Social.
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  >Public health as a concept is one of unlimited totalitarianism. The public health community is made up of people who are comfortable with that. Thanks, you have summarized what was on my mind.
philjohn 4y ago
Except, can you point me to wher they've gone further and used this leverage for other things? The No Job, No Pay is old at this point.

justintime11 4y ago

This absolutely must be responded with "No Pay, No Taxes" When the government fails to provide services at all, taxation reaches an unacceptable level of violent theft.

SangareEel 4y ago
[flagged]
- ImaCake 4y ago
  Pretty sure this is just a racist comment. A quick look at the demographics data for Australia shows it to be overwhelmingly white european - even if we restrict ourselves to the White Australia Policy definitions.
  - SangareEel 4y ago
    Please capitalise White European

yucky 4y ago

> Interestingly, it was News Limited (parent company of Fox News) that championed these laws I don't think it's surprising that authoritarians like those at Fox News would support authoritarianism.