Opinion World

There Is No Hard Scientific Justification for Hazardous Public Health Policies

Under Hazzard’s watch, if Schindler's List, Sarah's Key, or Life is Beautiful, were to be released today in cinemas around New South Wales, (ironically) only those deemed superior by the state - those with pledge passports - would be able to go and watch them.
  • 278
    Shares

Of all the demographics, the boomer generation (people born between 1946 and 1964) are the most fanatical when it comes to forcing healthy young people into taking a medical procedure.

A procedure many of those young people don’t need, yet are taking, under duress, in order to keep their jobs, because the Boomer generation has declared: “get vaxxed or face the axe!”

All of this is dogmatically defended on the basis of either a skewed, propagandised understanding of Covid-19 or bad theology’s eisegetical reading of the Gospels (from which my generation, and the generations who follow, are blatantly manipulated, by being told to get “vaccinated” because “Jesus would too!”).

We’ve gone from “we’re all in this together” to “wear a mask or you want to kill grandma.” We’ve ended up at a COVID loyalty program, QR Code surveillance, complete with pledge passports, and let’s “make life hell for the unvaccinated!”

If the vaccines work, why are boomers so afraid?

One explanation is that the boomer demographic, are, by far, the most selfish, spoilt and privileged generation of the lot.

The boomer level of entitlement is well-documented.

Vox, recounting an interview with author Bruce Gibney in 2017, writes:

Boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it.

Gibney explained:

Boomers are the largest political class. There’s nothing conspiratorial about that. Politicians respond to the most important part of the electorate, and that’s been the boomers for decades. They were born into great fortune and had a blast while they were on top. But what have they left behind?

The NY Post also quoted Gibney, stating:

Baby boomers have an appetite for consumption and a lack of empathy for future generations. Those characteristics have resulted in bad policy decisions such as preferential tax treatment and entitlement programs.

The same sentiment is shared across the board.

In chronological order:

Minus the hate-Trumpism, and “neo-classical economist” demonisation, a Business Insider article from 2016, stated:

Millennials [and I’ll add Gen X, Y and Z] do not benefit from the selfishness of their parents [and for some in the latter generations, Grandparents].

The Independent, May 2017: “it may be the baby boomers who are in fact more entitled than their children.”

The Guardian, in 2018, asked:

Today, “baby boomer” is a toxic phrase, shorthand for greed and selfishness, for denying the benefits we took for granted to subsequent generations, notably beleaguered millennials, who reached adulthood in the early years of this century. So, where did it all go so very wrong?

Importantly, every single source cited above is either left-leaning or hard-leftist.

Just as importantly, every single one of these sources are silent about how the Boomer demand for entitlement is driving the age of COVID-19 totalitarianism.

As one Twitter user “quipped?”:

Where is the largely leftist legacy media’s protests, and analysis of, the blatant boomer abuse of power?

Why aren’t more young people protesting the boomer generation’s claim to ownership, and entitlement over the lives of other people?

Boomers are the ones still in charge. COVID authoritarianism is the perfect opportunity to raise valid concerns about how that generation is exercising the power, wealth and freedoms, their parents bled and died to defend.

Of course, not everyone in the Boomer demographic is a jack-booted, hard-headed COVID nutjob.

Whether that criticism is mine, or the barrage of (somewhat) noisy and misguided leftist hit-pieces so prevalent pre-COVID, there are plenty of “Boomers” who deserves applause, not criticism.

My overall point is that there are some in this generation who deserve critique, and I find it interesting that the largely Leftist legacy media are unusually silent on the subject.

In the COVID-era “benefits” taken for granted by the boomer gen are civil liberties and basic rights.

The Boomer generation is predominantly behind: denying the right to medical care (COVID treatments and care for the unvaccinated). The right to protest. The right to assembly, informed consent, freedom of speech (note the Green’s asinine push to replace free speech with “fair speech”). Then there’s the boomer housing bubble crippling housing affordability, and the list goes on.

They are a powerful generation.

Among them sits a people group handed the reigns of guardianship over Western Civilisation. Among them sits those who are either unconscious or deliberately aware of the harm they’re causing to those entrusted to their care.

These sins of the Boomer generation are, perhaps, quintessentially represented by the New South Wales Health Minister, the Honourable, Brad Hazzard.

For example:

In connection with this, note The Guardian, September 28:

The New South Wales health minister Brad Hazzard insists police will be responsible for enforcing entry restrictions on unvaccinated people – a position at odds with the state’s police commissioner who said officers would “not be walking through restaurants, cafes and pubs checking if people are double vaccinated.”

Rebel News, November 1:

There are some people still hanging out for different vaccines…[such as Novavax] We are awash at the moment with Pfizer so let’s just get real, folks and get out there and get the Pfizer.

The health minister is also the leading NSW politician seeking to force the COVID-19 “vaccine” onto our kids.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4th November:

As Health Minister I would like to see the vaccinations available for children.

Additionally, The Australian, on November 10 alleged that Hazzard received preferential treatment:

Hazzard avoided a two-week self-isolation when Health bureaucrats deemed Hazzard a “casual contact” after a “close contact meeting” held during the “Delta” outbreak. The meeting saw key members of the NSW parliament self-isolating for two weeks – as per the Public Health Orders at the time.

How is this calibre of politician still considered fit for the role of Health Minister?

Why are taxpayers still being forced to fund his position, and his arrogant, rampant totalitarianism?

No one should be refused medical care in the name of public health.

Yet, under Hazzard’s “no jab, no job” reign of terror, people are being refused medical treatment if they’re not “vaccinated.” (I know of a case personally).

More recently, the Hazzard style of governance brought some to tears and utter frustration when he moved the goalposts ending his segregation of NSW. The amendment moved 90% “vaccinated” to 95% “vaccinated” and a December 1st opening back to December 15.

Hazzard is also on record saying he’s not happy with the 95%, and lamented the fact that he had to be fair, telling 2GB radio,

No, I don’t really feel comfortable about that, but we live in the real world and we have to make sure that our community are treated as fairly and reasonably as we can.

He was also militant about forcing ‘Churchgoers to show proof of vaccination [even after] the State re-opened.’ (SMH)

This is while denying Churches would have to turn unvaccinated people away.

This all speaks volumes about how nonsensical the COVID crazy really is, and how far up the political food chain the madness goes.

Case in point: under Hazzard’s watch, if Schindler’s List, Sarah’s Key, or Life is Beautiful, were to be released today in cinemas around New South Wales, (ironically) only those deemed superior by the state – those with pledge passports – would be able to go and watch them.

People can shop for hours in supermarkets for essentials, but cannot attend their regular place of employment.

The illogical nature of Hazzard’s governance suggests that very little in Hazzard’s powerful arsenal, that he’s deployed against the people of NSW, is based on solid scientific reasoning.

As Kerry Chant, under oath in the NSW Supreme Court, admitted: the NSW government isn’t following the national Doherty health advice, of opening up at 80% vaccinated. Even after NSW agreed to do so.

Chant all but outrightly confessed that the harm being done in the name of public health is about politics, not medicine.

There is no hard scientific justification for Hazzard’s hazardous public health policies.

End the mandates!


  • 278
    Shares