Time for a Partial Lockdown for NSW?

The current NSW hard lockdown is not going well. Four weeks in and the numbers are going up and not down. The Four Yorkshiremen of COVID strategy are out in force on social media insisting that NSW hasn’t even tried a REAL hard lockdown “..That’s not a lockdown. A real lockdown looks like……..” and insisting that Gladys go HARDER and not stop until she hears the pips squeak. While yet others are insisting it is time to rip off the band-aid and follow Boris “BOJO” Johnson into the land of “let it rip” freedom. Perhaps it is just time for a new approach in NSW….a Partial Lockdown where the fully vaccinated are subject to fewer restrictions than the unvaccinated.

What is different now to other Aussie lockdowns?

Delta is different

There is a tendency to apply what worked once and make no allowance for things that have changed. The most obvious change is that COVID-19 has changed and the new Delta strain is substantially more contagious than earlier strains that were effectively eliminated through lockdown strategies. There is a very real chance that once the Delta strain has gained the sort of foothold it has gained in Sydney, it may not be possible to eradicate it, just as we have not been able to eradicate a bunch of the other significantly contagious viruses (influenza, para influenza, common cold, rhonivirus etc) that circulate and have continued to circulate in Australia throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sure we can blame Premier Gladys Berejiklian for underestimating the Delta strain and fluffing around while it was still a small outbreak in the Eastern Suburbs and not stamping it out with extreme prejudice, but the fact is that she didn’t and now it may not be possible to stamp it out. And even if there were a cocktail of extreme super duper hard lockdown measures that would eventually work, the second difference discussed below suggests it may not now be worth the effort trying to eliminate the Delta strain in Sydney.

Full vaccination is different

The second key difference to other lockdowns is that there is now a significant number of people in NSW who are fully vaccinated. At the moment in the NSW there are 1 million people who are fully vaccinated and another 2.4 million who have had one dose and will be fully vaccinated in a matter of weeks. Every day tens of thousands of people are joining the ranks of the fully vaccinated.


This is a completely different state of affairs to a few months ago when it just wasn’t possible to get vaccinated at all.

1 million people is a lot of people to keep locked down when they are fully vaccinated. If someone has gone to the trouble of getting fully vaccinated there needs to be a very good reason to prevent them from using their vaccination status to operate a business or earn wages (and not rely on some sort of government drip) or just get out and about.

And NSW has one of the lowest percentages of full vaccination so this difference is even more striking for the other Australian states.

So what would a Partial Lockdown look like?

How might the lockdown restrictions in NSW be modified for a Partial Lockdown?

In a Partial Lockdown those who are fully vaccinated would be given a “Partial Lockdown licence” and be subject to fewer restrictions, perhaps including the following:

  • Remove the 10 km restriction on exercise and outdoor recreation for the fully vaccinated
  • Allow businesses currently required to close to re-open if all of the staff working are fully vaccinated
  • Allow the fully vaccinated to return to work
  • Allow the fully vaccinated to shop (and even “browse”!)

The above may not sound like much but with 1 million fully vaccinated people in NSW it would mean that at least some economic activity can get moving straight away.

More importantly it will create an immediate and tangible incentive for the unvaccinated to get moving and get vaccinated.

With millions of doses of AstraZeneca lying around on the shelves in GP and immunisation hub fridges in Sydney and across Australia the excuse that one cannot get vaccinated is no longer valid. While other Australian states may wish to hold on to their stocks of Pfizer there is no excuse for them holding onto their excess stocks of AstraZeneca while they are able to maintain zero local transmission status and their citizens feel no pressure to get vaccinated. It is perfectly fine for their citizens to stay picky and wait for stocks of Pfizer, Novavax and Moderna to drop from the skies in a few months but in NSW the luxury of zero local transmission is now just a memory.

No Freedom Day

A Partial Lockdown is not about letting COVID rip or about declaring some loopy BOJO “Freedom Day”. It is nothing more than reducing the restrictions that apply to the fully vaccinated. Everyone who is not fully vaccinated in areas where there is no longer zero local transmission will remain subject to lockdown restrictions.


But this will make the unvaccinated second class citizens.

At the moment those who have taken the trouble to get fully vaccinated are being treated like second class citizens. It is a bit like refusing to allow anyone to drive a car on the basis that requiring people to obtain a driving licence unfairly discriminates against those who haven’t bothered to obtain a driving licence.

The fully vaccinated have obtained their Partial Lockdown licence and should be allowed to use it. If any unvaccinated person wants a Partial Lockdown licence all they have to do is to go and get themselves vaccinated with whatever vaccine they can get their hands on.

But how will the COVID cops police this?

To a large extent policing it will not be necessary. Anyone who is unvaccinated and is not observing the lockdown and is wandering around as though they have a Partial Lockdown licence, will be playing COVID roulette and will suffer the consequences of an infection if they catch one. It will not take long before the unvaccinated will understand the risks they are taking and respond by either staying home or getting off their butts and acquiring vaccination or if they have balls of steel they can continue to play COVID roulette.

If nanny-state lovers wish, it would not be difficult to require Partial Lockdown licence holders to carry their vaccination report around with them or for the State Government to add vaccination status to the Service NSW app that everyone is using to read QR codes. That way the COVID cops could ask people to show their Partial Lockdown licences on demand and taser those that refuse to comply.

But they can still infect the unvaccinated!

The usual reason given for locking down the fully vaccinated is that there is evidence that some of them can still contract COVID and some of them can still infect other people who have not been vaccinated.

The problem with this logic is that if there is COVID-19 circulating in the community we are going to have to keep the fully vaccinated locked down until 100% of the population has been vaccinated as until we reach that point there will continue to be a risk that an unvaccinated person will be infected by a fully vaccinated person. And why do this anyway when the alternative is simple. Just recommend that the unvaccinated stay in lockdown and away from the rapidly growing numbers of the fully vaccinated who may be infected (but are unlikely to be very infectious).

Keeping the unvaccinated safe

Of course it would be nicer for the unvaccinated in NSW if we could get back to zero local transmission so the unvaccinated could wander freely while they make up their minds whether or not they will get vaccinated or whether they will wait for their “preferred” vaccine to become available. But that may not be possible in NSW if zero local transmission is no longer possible and where we have over 1 million people (increasingly by tens of thousands every day) who are already fully vaccinated and may not be convinced that they should continue to be locked down while some (not all) people choose to wait for their preferred vaccine.


Unvaccinated individuals who live alone can make the decision for themselves. If they don’t want to get vaccinated with either vaccine (and there are quite a few who don’t) or are awaiting a vaccination booking they can either stay at home (personal lockdown) to avoid the virus or take their chances outside of the home. At any time they can change their decision either by getting vaccinated with a different vaccine that is more available or if they decide the risk of leaving home is too great they can return to their personal lockdown.


Household can also make their own decisions. If any of the family members wish to leave the home the ENTIRE family should decided whether they will allow this as any movement outside of the family home entails risk in circumstances when there is local transmission of COVID-19. Unfortunately, for some families there is little choice whether some family members leave home as those family members are the income earners or do essential work so in most cases the best choice for households which cannot maintain a tight household lockdown is for all members of the family to get vaccinated asap.

The Anti-Vaxers

One of the problems for those arguing that we should maintain a hard lockdown (including lockdown of the fully vaccinated) is that they assume that everyone wants to get vaccinated and the only thing standing in the way is sufficient supplies of vaccine. But we already know from the experience in other countries and with other well established vaccines that there are plenty of people who given the choice will simply refuse to have COVID “devil juice” injected into them and will prefer to take their chances.

Although not Anti-Vaxers, the unvaccinated who are refusing to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca are not much different as they have access to a vaccine and are refusing to take it. Overseas reports indicate that Novavax is far superior to both Pfizer and AstraZenca and should be available late 2021 or early 2022. Should we maintain a hard lock down just so those that want to wait for Novavax remain safe until they get their “preferred” vax?

Issue as many Partial Lockdown licences as fast as possible

It is highly likely that when Gladys introduces the concept of a Partial Lockdown this week (we choose Bushell’s tea leaves) and starts reducing restrictions on the fully vaccinated, that there will be a rush from many of those sitting on the vaccination fence for a jab of anything. Accordingly, it is important that the state government set up immunisation hubs right across Sydney but especially in the South Western suburbs where local transmission of Delta is a real problem.

Who knows, if we jab fast enough in the South West it might be possible to reduce new infections and infections out in the community back to zero but without the promise of Partial Lockdown licences we can be certain that there will not be enough jabs demanded.

The proposed Partial Lockdown approach is ironically the only way we can get back to zero local transmission.

At the moment between 50,000 and 60,000 doses of vaccine are being administered in NSW per day and the NSW government has proved it is able to conduct over 100,000 COVID tests. As the most well organised state in the Commonwealth the NSW government should set the goal of delivering 150,000 doses of vaccine per day or 1 million per week. As the Commonwealth government is currently exporting AstraZeneca to other countries it should not be difficult to secure ample supplies of AstraZenca to reach this target.

But what about the other states that have zero local transmission?

Well the answer is simple.

They insist that it was the failure of Gladys to protect the NSW borders and to allow the Delta strain to escape from quarrantine. This true but also means that the answer is that the other states should take responsibility for their own borders and stop expecting NSW to protect them from infected arrivals from the outside world.

There is nothing stranger than hearing Victorians simultaneously whinging about the failure of Gladys to protect NSW from infections from overseas while complaining that Victoria should not be responsible for protecting Victorians from a truckload of removalists from NSW. If Victoria wants a belt of steel they should build it on the Victorian side of the border with NSW for as long as they think necessary. Dont fret we will still love you and your coffee.

The other Australian states should seal their borders with NSW and protect their zero transmission status for as long as possible but they would be well advised to take seriously the problem that their own citizens are unlikely to take the vaccination message seriously while they perceive there is very low risk of infection. While they might say they just want to wait for Pfizer you may find they decide, when loads of Pfixer is available, that they would prefer to wait for Novavax in 2022.

Demanding that Gladys crush the economy of NSW chasing the dream of elimination of the Delta strain may feel good but it is unlikely to happen. The NSW construction industry will put up with a hard lockdown for about another 2 weeks at best. Keep in mind that Premier Daniel Andrews never locked down the Melbourne construction industry…..and for good reason.

2 8 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I see one GLARING problem with this.
It assumes that the vax actually prevents spread and hospitalisation.
If the government was OK with people having personal responsibility for themselves the lockdown wouldn’t be a thing already so if the vax merely reduces those things then logically lockdowns for all remain.

Last edited 2 years ago by bjw678

If getting back to zero is no longer a credible objective then what is the point of locking down over 1 million people who are already vaccinated?

If that is no longer credible what is the point of locking down anyone? The entire point of lockdown is to prevent spread.

Well vaccination does that to a substantial degree so there is that.

If the vax reduces hospitalisation by 90% compared to unvaxed then the numbers will still explode if you have vaxed people out of lockdown, and it seems that improvement is optimistic.

It’s a moot point though because a 1000 a day infection rate is political death to gladys in comparison with previous performance so they will squash everyone and do absolutely everything they can to prevent it.


That is much much less of a concern with the fully vacinated who are well protected once fully vacinated..

See post below for UK stats,43% of covid fatalities fully vax’d in a population of 55% fully vax’d.
“well protected” is a very generous description of that stat.


Since the vaccine does not confer immunity, only reduced symptoms or disesase duration, it follows that herd immunity is unachieveable. Similarly, having had covid doesn’t necessarily stop you having it again. In addition, vaccination doesn’t prevent you being contagious. The best evidence I found in a brief search says that being vaccinated reduces the likelihood of transmitting the virus by 40-60%. To me those numbers do not constitute transmission being unlikely, just less likely. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduc

The death rate from covid for people aged 0-59 is ~0.1% (https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-0). For all ages, of those who died from covid, only 12.8% did not have some other contributory condition. I conclude that vaccinating should be a personal choice and restrictions should not be based on whether you have had the vaccine or not.

stop expecting NSW to protect them from infected arrivals from the outside world”. NSW and VIC have long been the preferred destination for overseas arrivals into Australia. It is they who “benefit” most from mass immigration. It is no surprise that it is they who put this argument.

VIC showed last year that an extended hard lockdown can work. If the vaccine is effective, the lockdown shouldn’t have to be as long as it was in VIC last year. NSW’s current problem is due to not locking down hard and early. If they lock down hard now, it will work. Is Delta really that different that a lockdown won’t work? The numbers I’ve seen estimate it’s infectiousness as about twice that of the original virus (run out of links so search “Here’s what we know about the Indian Delta COVID-19 variant detected in Victoria’s outbreak” and look for a link to the the abc site). Is a doubling of infectiousness enough to invalidate lockdowns? I doubt it. The Perth lockdown at the beginning of July was effective.

There are many reasons not to take this vaccination. Mine is primarily political. I won’t vaccinate because the federal government has said they won’t open the borders until “enough” people are vaccinated. I think closed borders are good for Australian workers because it improves their bargaining position. Lack of mass immigration will eventually result in wage rises and static or falling house prices. While I am still relatively young, I don’t need it. For the same reason, I don’t take the annual flu vaccine. The calculus is different for those over 70.


BUT there is a world of difference between removing restrictions on people who are vaccinated and people who are not. Removing restrictions on people who are not vaccinated will suggest that it is safe for them to move freely outside of the home and that is unlikely to be the case if Delta is in circulation. 

In other words if people who unvaccinated want to wander around as though they are vaccinated then they are free to do so but it should not be encouraged or endorsed by the government. Whereas the fully vaccinated will be endorsed to get on with life.

well, that seem like an argument for a public education campaign then, doesn’t it?

maybe a bunch of posters, like this:

»Youse all are free to do what you like but be advised that:

  • today’s COVID variant is “Delta”
  • moving around puts you at risk of catching diseases, including covid
  • jabs that are thought to reduce the transmission of COVID and severity of symptoms are available (on a no liability basis)
  • Drinking when pregnant harms your baby

hey? 😋


Will there be a message for the vaxxed who get sick and die?

Suck shit perhaps, or my bad.


BUT there is a world of difference between removing restrictions on people who are vaccinated and people who are not. Removing restrictions on people who are not vaccinated will suggest that it is safe for them to move freely outside of the home and that is unlikely to be the case if Delta is in circulation.

In other words if people who unvaccinated want to wander around as though they are vaccinated then they are free to do so but it should not be encouraged or endorsed by the government. Whereas the fully vaccinated will be endorsed to get on with life.

That is a very slippery slope to walk.
What happens when vaccinated people start to die?
Is making something half as dangerous or 1/10 as dangerous really worth going from “ÿou are not allowed to leave your home even for work” to ÿou have no restrictions”

Why most people who now die with Covid in England have had a vaccination

“Study shows 29% of the 42 people who have died after catching the new strain had BOTH vaccinations.” In Public Health England’s technical briefing on 25 June, that figure had risen to 43% (50 of 117), with the majority (60%) having received at least one dose.

Edit: and to put that 43% in context 55% of the population is fully vaxxed. That isn’t much of a reduction at all.

Last edited 2 years ago by bjw678

Save yourself the local deaths, the UK results are in, the vax isn’t doing much and scads of fully vaccinated are dead.
The future has been this rooted many times. Just accept it, get over the lockdowns and let nature take it’s course. It will eventually no matter what.


This is a futile argument because he hasn’t articulated what his goal is

it seems to be to get as many people vaccinated as possible , just for its own sake (“our path to freedom”)

not to prevent as many deaths as possible

he just wants to punish the unvaccinated, for some unknown reason

even though most of them are not the people at risk from coronavirus (healthy young people) and vaccination won’t stop the spread to the actual vulnerable (old, fat, chronic illness) anyway


even though most of them are not the people at risk from coronavirus (healthy young people) and vaccination won’t stop the spread to the actual vulnerable (old, fat, chronic illness) anyway

plot twist… pfh is an agent provocateur and he is proposing a plan – full of plausible deniability – that will quite reliably get those pesky old fatties wiped out!

what do you reckon?


I think he just likes the sound of his own voice

he even started his own website, recycling other peoples ideas and trying to pass them off as his own

just with more words, and less insight

did we really need to give him another soapbox here ?

if he wanted to wank on about this tedious shit he could have done it in the comments section like the rest of us, without the aggrandisement and pomp of needing his own article

not like he’s even a regular contributor to the community

just another gunnamatta/skippy type who has an inflated sense of his own worth

Last edited 2 years ago by Coming

I reckon he’s listened to the narrative that “we will open up when enough are vaxed” and accepted that as gospel rather than the delaying tactic it clearly is.


Yeah I’m not sure what the point he is trying to make is

“vaccine passports will increase uptake of the vaccine”

yeah, no shit they will

could have saved his keyboard the punishment


Delaying tactic? What is the thing you think that Mr Big has planned but for some reason needs more time to prepare?

They don’t have anything planned. What they are delaying is having the public realise this.
Why do you think they constantly flip flop on positions, change rules and targets, and in general seem highly confused.
They are the embodiment of the 24hour news cycle. Anything beyond next week doesn’t matter so pushing decisions to 6 or 12 months away by saying we will evaluate when we reach “ënough” vaccination is a win win for them.


Which is why my preferred position is eradication of the virus in the community, super tight and professional quarantine for international movements and avoid vaccines for as long as possible.

pfh, I’m not the sharpest fruit in the drawer, but it’s a bit hard reconciling this with what you’ve written in the article.

the article felt a bit like a playbook to accelerate vaccine adoption through mild(?) coercion, in order to go “back to their glorious open border, free markets, free capital flows world as fast as possible”

Mebbe it’s why coming is losing his poo?


The difficulty for neoliberal globalist goverments is that there is this nasty problem that the general public don’t like the idea of dying or even getting sick so they have been forced to come up with ‘vaccines’ to get the public to agree to allowing rich folks and corps and other assorted sociopaths get back to business as usual.

The public doesn’t like all the immigrants either, why would they start giving a fuck what the public wants now?
People don’t like the lockdowns to the point of violent protests.
All they have to do if they want to “let it rip” is pretend to lock us down and then accidentally have it escape.
They are clearly not doing that but doing everything possible to stop it.

There are some really big logical holes in your theory.

But the reckless “let it rip” mentality in the NSW government appears determined to take that off the menu which is why we are where we are.

They are trampling people with police horses, we are 1 step away from the military on the streets to prevent people breaking the lockdown to prevent spread.
Give me one sensible reason to justify this preposterous position.


dude, do you really, honestly, believe that eradication of the virus, everywhere throughout the entire world can be achieved? or are you just saying in Australia?


All of the above I think I can wholeheartedly agree with.

  • quarantine works. It is a lot of effort and hard work to make it effective, but it’s possible.
  • international travel is largely unnecessary.

I don’t think arrivals have really fallen a full 98%. In any case, to make quarantine work better, it’s possible to halve arrivals again.

but going this way implies a very large shift in the EZFKA power structure. So I have difficulty believing it will happen.

It is possible that it will (despite the EZFKA, just like the great powers getting entangled in the Great War, despite nobody wanting it). But it is unlikely.


Cool story bro. I haven’t gone to a hospital and tried to catch any contagious disease(of which there are quite a lot, most more dangerous than covid), but I also haven’t been locked in my house in case I got them either.


How about you answer one of my questions

or fuck off back to the glass pyramid


So you still won’t answer?


So you still won’t answer?

Given the NSW government is apparently running a “let it rip” policy in his opinion I’ve come to the conclusion his answers are pointless.


I think saying NSW had a let a rip mentality is drawing a long bow… I think they didn’t want to go hard lockdown… but that’s not the same as letting rip, or is it?


It’s all a matter of perspective.
Someone pushing vax passport is clearly pushing for unvaxxed to be permanently banned from doing things.
From that perspective current policy is let it rip relatively.


Your usual verbose nonsense

you haven’t addressed why we need a lockdown in the first place

what’s your reasoning ?

is it to prevent “the health system from being overwhelmed” ?

if it is, then it makes no sense to lockdown anyone under 50 regardless of vaccination status because statistics show that they simply aren’t likely to be severely affected

they have a lower risk than fully vaccinated elderly people

Healthy normal weight unvaccinated people probably also have a similar or lower risk than fully vaccinated fatties or immune compromised

are you going to lock them down ?

we also know that vaccinated still contract and spread the disease
so I’m failing to see any other possible logic here

will you also keep unvaccinated children locked down?
no school? They have to live separate to their parents ?

why don’t you try again , and this time provide some kind of rationale

without using 10,000 words preferably


Umm , no

you wrote about who should be locked down

but didn’t bother to explain your reasoning

why are we allowing the vaccinated to mingle freely but nobody else?

is it because you think they are less likely to become severely ill , and therefore less likely to burden the health system ?

if yes, why don’t you say so?

what are you trying to achieve ?
and why ?

these aren’t difficult questions to answer

Last edited 2 years ago by Coming

Will you at any point answer any questions


i thought you wouldn’t


Basically this was 10,000 words of puerile dribble about how vaccine passports might increase vaccine uptake

wow – profound insight

it’s not like people have been talking about this for almost a year now , and rolled it out in various major countries around the world

really, this could have been a gunamatta post buried in the regular comments section that everyone could just scroll past and ignore

is there any new idea here that deserved its own post ?

Agent 47

My thoughts too. This is the same middle class authoritarianism I was ranting about in weekend links.

Take ivermectin and get under the bed if you’re that scared. oh wait that’s banned and vaccines are the only salvation. Everything in life is calculated risk and the second you walk out the front door you accept the risk of death.

This is why I got away from MB as it’s no different from theirs or the MSM position. Granting special privileges for vaccinated is essentially covid passports via reverse discrimination.


I mean it’s very likely that vaccine passports will happen , irrespective of logic and reason and freedom

but we all knew that was coming

So what is the point of this article ?

maybe I missed it because I found it hard to concentrate through the whole turgid thing

MB Fanboi

This virus has a very low mortality rate, why are we even discussing the ‘vaccine passport’ malarkey? Seriously? It makes me want to punch a horse!

MB Fanboi

You know what I meant! Fend, push, not resist!


I knew I should have gone along to the protest, it would have been lots of fun.


Is this like a donkey punch?


Here’s a thought. What if the Covid spike proteins induced by the vaccines really are toxic as some have posited. And what if that toxicity results in long term harm of as yet unknown type and quantity? The sort of thing that might show up in long term vaccine tests, but wouldn’t show up in a rushed 6 month long development cycle that then used the population as guinea pigs while making a mozza for big pharma. Because we all know that big pharma should be totally trusted and would never cause harm for profit.

What if in a couple of years time we find the vaccines have caused…oh I dunno….birth defects, like thalidomide? Or fertility problems? Or increased risk of blood clotting and strokes? Or something else entirely.

There’s a reason other vaccines have taken years to produce, and that we reasoning…that science…has been abandoned with these vaccines. They may be just fine, but right now I don’t trust them at all.

Agent 47


No one knows the effects on unborn kids. Plenty of miscarriages in the VAERS data too. All these fucks pushing the vac will be nowhere to be seen in a few years time if we have massive side effects among the population.

It’s become a case of trust the scientist and not trust the science. Seriously how have people become so addicted to comfort that they won’t dissent even in the face of common sense?


The way the COVID drama – before the jabs, and now with the jabs – has played out is barely distinguishable from the franking credit drama a few years ago.

basically, the asset owners (older, fatter) are going to be protected at the cost of the asset-less (younger) worker.

with the franking credit stuff the “cost” was just financial; a transfer of benefits from the younger worker to the older asset owner.

With this, the “cost” is non-financial – a net transfer of the risk of morbidity from the older asset owner to the younger worker.

pure EZFKA.

will be surprising if anyone votes against it.

MB Fanboi

This entire Covid malarkey has been the old cnuts screwing the younger generations. I’m am technically an old cnut and I mourn the future of my kids who due to no fault of their own find themselves in casual work that disappears as soon as there is a lock down. Doesn’t matter if they have a jab or not. EZFKA can go and get fooked. We need to let this thing rip and get on with life.

Chinese Astroturfer

The irony is that the risk group 70+ are all basically retired living off super or the pension. They don’t have to go anywhere, can get groceries home delivered.

Dictator David

You can say cunt here bloke

Does it means one should, simply because one could?

The use of anagrams and homophones brings a dose of civility. See W@F and how his posts stand out like a turd in the pool.


His posts stand out because they are devoid of content.
I could post









and it would stand out for basically the same reason

A fly in your ointment

Your hypothetical post above would be a metaphorical saturation of leaves in the same pool. It interferes with a perfect swim but it does not make it disgusting.


More like pellets of possum poop scattered on the porch, he’s never contributed anything substantial enough to be compared to a turd in a pool.

A fly in your ointment

He taught me that calling someone gay can be utter insult in lame communities.
That is contribution


This is very much the risk – training immune responses to naturally occurring protein spikes that exist in the body for reasons that we don’t yet fully appreciate, that these virus happen to also bind onto, is a bad idea.

It will be pique of irony if what actually kills off our civilization is a fit of hysteria over a turbo charged common cold with a 99.9% survival rate, that we mass vaccinate against and in the process accidently sterlize ourselves or induce mass auto-immune disease.


Apparently miscarriages are rising rapidly.


We started exploring these themes a few days ago, eg https://www.ezfka.com/2021/07/22/study-finds-that-100-of-australians-who-took-the-jab-to-get-their-freedoms-back-are-retarded/#comment-7512

I think I see how this plays out. 

once most of the local couples are rendered infertile, the importation of breeding units (nice and compliant ones) from the third world can begin. 

it will work doubly well, because the third world won’t have had the jabs so:

  • they won’t be chemically neutered
  • they will also be from the part of the population that have survived teh COVID, so will be strong stock (natural selection and all that)

it’s actually a pretty good plan!


What if in a couple of years time we find the vaccines have caused…oh I dunno….birth defects, like thalidomide? Or fertility problems? Or increased risk of blood clotting and strokes? Or something else entirely.

Don’t worry. The manufacturers are well aware of this and have ensured that they have special legislation absolving them from any responsibility for anything that happens.
I believe you sign a waiver acknowledging this to get the vax but this is speculation on my part.

Chinese Astroturfer

I only skimmed through it but this is satire right?

I’m trying to work out why are people either concerned about the unvaccinated becoming sick or concerned they will spread the virus.

To me the vaccinated are the real danger because they are far more likely to be asymptomatic. The vaccinated if infected more likely to show symptoms, will be more likely then to stay home or seek medical help, therefore more likely to isolate. The vaccinated more likely to be out there spreading the virus back over and over back and forth none the wiser.

The argument used against the unvaccinated is that what about other people you might infect?

Why doesn’t this apply to the vaccinated? Is it okay to spread the virus far and wide to the 10-40% that don’t get any kind of immunity from the vaccines.

It’s quite bizarre.


It’s pretty simple, just like dls, he;s vaccinated and wants to be allowed to do stuff, but for reasons no one can work out wants to force everyone else to have the vaccine instead of being allowed to do stuff without it.

Chinese Astroturfer

DLS was hysterical about Trump murdering his citizens last year, but since Biden has come into office he’s murdered 200k Americans.

I don’t remember DLS or anyone on the left getting in a tizzy over this.

Biden hasn’t implemented restrictions or lockdowns to stop these 200k deaths in fact he’s done nothing. Yet the left applaud him for what he’s done. Trump on the other was a murderer.


I think that’s what they call “partisan”


Good article Pfh – disagreed with some of the assumptions and the need for licenses, but agreed with the final conclusion, we should definitely move to a partial lockdown.

The vulnerable should be priortised and encouraged to seek vaccination, then anyone else who wants it, particularly those in critical services, and then the virus should be allowed to rip, with periodic lock downs to dampen the subsequent peaks intensity and drain on the hospitals… which I seem to remember was the original plan all along.

But agree that the current strategy has no end game, and that there is very little incentive to do what needs to be done – imho mainly due to the negative effect the media has on society and rational, and proportionate discourse over what mainly amounts to a fact of life.


Yeah I thought it was pretty obvious that you were fine with people moving about, problem is once you mention licenses everyone understands what this will mean in EZFKA – draconian enforcement.

I personally sit more in Robert123’s camp – the sooner we are all vaccinated the sooner they’ll turn immigration back to 11. That plus the fact that I have issues with healthy people taking a vaccine that is most unlikely to make them any sicker than the flu.

I doubt that there is a nefarious plot behind it, but I rate much higher the possibility that in a pique of mass hysteria humanity rushes into the arms of an experimental vaccine to save them from a virus that for most people isn’t any deadlier than the flu, and in the process either mass sterilizes itself or triggers an explosion in autoimmune disease.

That plus the fact I am naturally disagreeable, so when the herd runs one way, I am always incline to run in the other direction. Anyhow, have some fun – I see Coming just posted an article!


Zero local transmission is not worth locking down millions of people for 3 months a year or more indefinitely.


Zero local transmission is not worth locking down millions of people for 3 months a year or more indefinitely.

not as an end in itself

but if that’s the price of other things, it could well be worth it, especially for yoingins.

If we say that there are going to be 3 month lockdowns every year for the next 10 years, that’s just 30 months.

if that secures ~50% land price crater, that translates much more than 30 months worth of work time saved for the average EZFKA looser. Add some hobby that the looser can do during increased hometime & said looser is well ahead.

so the real question is not what is the price. The real question is what does this buy.

Last edited 2 years ago by Peachy

What it secures is the wealthy that are not selling their time for income continue to get wealthier, while those that sell their time are unable to and become poorer.

In general.


Yes, this is generally the way it goes. And this is where it has been going so far.

but if we really do look to timeframes such as 10yrs or more, even I could imagine this being undone.

without foreign bods being imported or locals going overseas to spend, the housing shortage would be resolved and we would actually have local labour revalued upwards.


but if we really do look to timeframes such as 10yrs or more, even I could imagine this being undone.

Not with the current government.
Did you know that last year any GST registered business got a 10k payment with no eligibility requirements at all, and if you had paid gst you could get more.
Rather than pay welfare direct to people jobkeeper is being paid to businesses no questions asked but with an application difficulty meaning bigger business is much more likely to actually receive it.

What happens is determined by government policy and unless they want your outcome policy will be directed to prevent it.


What happens is determined by government policy and unless they want your outcome policy will be directed to prevent it.

for sure, mate. I’m with you there:

Yes, this is generally the way it goes. And this is where it has been going so far.

but 2 things:

  1. I was working with your suggestion of 3 months per year lockdowns indefinitely (which I abbreviated to 10 years). For now I can’t imagine a situation of rolling lockdowns and 300,000 arrivals per year.
  2. I was illustrating that “not worth it” is too absolute an assessment. It could well be worth it – the payoff could be very significant.

all that said, I think it’s sensible to conclude that we won’t have indefinite lockdowns because the consequences are so at odds with what government policy is (ie big Australia, big debt)


AIRCREW are the leaks, not arrivals.
Quarantine in remote areas doesn’t fix this.

3 months a year is historical data at this point, so that’s why I picked it.


the real irony of all of this sh1t is that the govt that has completely shut down our lives in the name of our health, safety and well being are the exact same cunts that have made shelter — which is ESSENTIAL IN MAINTAINING GOOD HEALTH — completely unattainaable to so many

these absolute cockbags have driven homelessness rates thru the roof, forced the indigent and young to pack into damp, cold, insalubrious rentals or bumper to bumper 6 to a room sharehouses — EXACTLY THE KINDS OF CONDITIONS U GET SICK AND SPREAD DISEASES TO IF UR FORCED TO FUCKIN LIVE IN

and yet they have the FUCKIN AUDACITY to act and pretend like they give a fucking SHIT about our ‘health’


oh fuck no, fuck your lockdowns and fuck your ‘covid passports, stick your experimental vaccines up your fuckin ass too

you old cunce didnt give a fuck about me or do anything for me, so why should i give a fuck about you? youre too much of a precious cunt to even get the AZ vaccine yourself or put down the butterscotch ice cream spoon and go for a walk around the block so its not my fault if you catch this shit and die

Last edited 2 years ago by stagmal

Peachy how do I submit an article ?

I can do a lot better than this


By the grace of allah you should have a menu bar across the top of your screen and a “+” button on it.

Press the button to creat a post.


No I do not


Bloody it issues. Timbo has that problem too 🙁

As a workaround, can you got to http://ezfka.com/wp-admin/ and log in there?


did that work?

I clicked both “publish” and “submit for review”


Are you still editing it?


actually let me tidy it up a bit

Last edited 2 years ago by Coming

Don’t forget to put in nice pictures. Everyone loves pictures.


“But this will make the unvaccinated second class citizens.”

so what? They can join renters

And also are you a pentecostal cultist? if not you’re already 2nd class

I printed the article and boiled it… until it boiled down to substitution of one minority rights for another competing minority rights. Maybe I’m wrong.
20 people gazing at the same statue all from a different angle saying their view is more accurate than that of others…


That is deep.



A fly in your ointment

Tnx, I try hard.
Some say that most times the only product of my hard labour is the sweat. 😉


Id argue is my position is everyone gets rights, and the ability to make their own decisions, vs people being told what they can do.
In terms of the lockdown debate I’m not infringing on anyone elses rights.
If you don’t want to leave your house, don’t. But why should I not leave mine because you don’t want to?


because your doing that will pose a risk to other people. i.e. the chance of you having covid, without symptoms, lets say that’s 1%. and the chance of them getting it from you lets say another 1%. and then the chance of them getting seriously ill from it, lets say that’s 0.1%.
it’s just too much risk. so so much risk.


I’m not saying other people be forced to interact with me.
See below.


Don’t waste your time arguing with bjw678 on this topic. He’s a stubborn libertarian who when repeatedly faced with the same argument by various posters expressed x3 different ways still can’t wrap his head around the fact that his actions may directly have negative impacts on others.

He has no idea about the concept of responsibility with freedom.

Last edited 2 years ago by The90kwbeast

Repeating the same argument doesn’t make it any more valid.

Locking me down is having direct negative impacts on me therefore your argument is invalid?

Cars kill more people than covid in australia therefore we should prevent people from driving?
This is the logical conclusion of your argument.


you Seem like one of those norty young people, bjw!

You need to be “targeted” and locked down, lest you spread teh virus to your betters!

Last edited 2 years ago by Peachy

And you repeating the same freedom at whatever cost regardless of consequences answers doesn’t mitigate risk for the rest of society.

Mate basically everyone else here disagrees with you and raises the same objections to your ‘responses’ except for coming, and this isn’t MB. So what does that tell you? You should live in the USA where their values are more closely aligned to yours once this is all over.

In any case a semi let it rip approach will probably happen whenever the government gives up managing this so you’ll get your way eventually, if you live in NSW.

Last edited 2 years ago by The90kwbeast

still can’t wrap his head around the fact that his actions may directly have negative impacts on others.

He has no idea about the concept of responsibility with freedom.

as I read it, what he can’t get his head around is why he and his cohort needs to eat the costs of negative impacts on others.


  • after wearing the costs of most other policies in recent times and all.
  • while the “others” facing the negative impacts from his actions have been on the winning end of said other policies
  • with no prospect nor promise that this new set of costs will lead to anything other than him getting shorn and left out in the cold, in order to coddle these others.

it’s not a single move game, see. It’s just the latest round in a long game, a game that has a very particular history.

Last edited 2 years ago by Peachy

One word – it’s selfish.

Jim Jeffries covered this all rather well on the topic of gun control. The parallel isn’t perfect but you get the idea.



One word – it’s selfish.

Correct, but that applies both ways equally at least, if not further your way.
I am not saying you can’t lock down if you want, I am not saying the government can’t provide you income support to do it, but you are saying I HAVE TO while not providing the income support, DO you see the asymmetry and selfishness on your end?

Limiting guns is vastly different than house arrest, and preventing people from making a living, running businesses and all the rest.

I’m not sure everyone here agrees with you but even you agree that eventually it’s getting out so how can you possibly justify years of lockdown for no long term benefit and massive long term costs?

Last edited 2 years ago by bjw678

If you could take daily covid tests showing negative results then go for it. Except that isn’t possible so therefore you can do a lot of damage at present if you do what you want. This isn’t hard to understand. I’ve explained this how many times, and it isn’t selfish of the rest of society to lock down when everyone is doing it…

And there is income support if you lose your job presently?

Debate here is done. I look forward to you complaining in a weeks time wheeling out the same selfish inane arguments.





You’re a selfish bloke aren’t ya


Cool so what about your family, friends, literally anyone else you run into and it spreads? What if your family chooses to lockdown and you want to run around doing whatever you want and infect everyone else?

Mate I’ve blown holes through your argument so many times now give it a rest.

Again, our viewpoints will converge whenever vaccination rates are quite a lot higher eventually but for now your ideas are crap mate.


Jim Jeffries covered this all rather well on the topic of gun control

Have gone and watched it.

and my response is “yeah, nah”.

bjw is closer to the truth. It’s a question of balancing different people’s rights.

the present reaction has looked like an episode of continuing to screw the usual EZFKA victims for the benefit of the usual EZFKA elites.

Why should the victims take it? Where’s the quid pro quo?


“Victims” are paid up to $600 per week to sit at home and do nothing if they lose their job? But yes loss of freedom is the biggest casualty for now.

Moreover, what rights should an individual have in a pandemic (ok more of a casedemic than pandemic but delta is still getting ugly)

On the guns sketch, it’s a fairly similar thing. The main reason to have them is mostly because you want to, yet the negative externalities are huge when things go wrong.

To what extent should individuals make their own choices even when by doing so the wider society is negatively impacted?


To what extent should individuals make their own choices even when by doing so the wider society is negatively impacted?

The only thing people walking around possibly with covid forces you to do is lockdown, which you want to do anyway.

I DON’T WANT TO lockdown but must because you want to?


Does 90kw live in a rural area that’s never had a lockdown?
So we get ALL the burden and he gets ALL the benefit?
That would explain such a pro lockdown position.


I dunno where 90kw lives.

my guess is that it’s less geography and more idealism on 90kw’s part. 90kw must still believe in “society” 😁


Sydney in the middle of a lockdown like everyone else

A fly in your ointment

@ bjw678

Can you be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that you are virus free at any point of time?

Because some dogs will maul children and some will attack random passer-by, all dogs are muzzled.
Some freedoms must be given for the benefit of society at special times. I am not saying lock out is the universally best solution, it is the common denominator in almost all cases and lowest hanging fruit. Did I say also that it is a nice leverage with plausible deniability for nefarious activities by .gov and .gov.au mob?


Anyone worried about the virus being in public can lock themselves away. This s no different than EVERYBODY being locked away from their perspective. All the people willing to risk infection may move freely.
My infection status in particular is irrelevant.

A fly in your ointment

Not if you impose your risks onto others.

You are taking the same perspective as guinea pigs that took the experimental jab stating they cannot die therefore they can carry the virus wherever they like.

Take it from the perspective that you could cause deaths through ignorance. Society have always been harsh to those people throughout history, e.g. killing of plagued that wanted to mingle with those that isolated and appeared clean was common.

Must go, must be brief


I can always cause deaths through ignorance in many ways.
I can’t cause death to anyone in voluntary lockdown whether I am locked down or not by giving them covid.


This is where your argument fails. How does preventing me leave my home prevent risk of others who don’t want to risk infection any more than just them not leaving home?

Risk aversion is being forced on me by others for no benefit to them.

All i am trying to say is if you think about it it doesn’t actually make much sense, even moreso if you aren’t planning on locking down forever.

I take that back, the benefit they get is not realising how cowardly they are relative to the rest of society, or how much smarter they are depending.

Last edited 2 years ago by bjw678

Lol fuck you’re an idiot. Have fun being locked down bitch. I’m off to the pub tomorrow night for dinner, then maybe a movie, then maybe a nice stroll along the river.

Suck fat bags of dicks suffering locked inside you whinging selfish cunt lol.

Last edited 2 years ago by Coming2
A fly in your ointment

All I am trying to say is that there are no absolute rights.