The effect of Covid-1 directions is really amazing in human life.
Interim lockdowns and border closures have caused many casualties and misery. Every day, people are flooded with liquid and constantly changing Covid-1 directions, which are, of course, rarely transparent.
This notion of continual change was realized by Michael DeMarco Spectator in an article in Australia, which stated that “one of the difficulties of the Kovid-1 pandemic epidemic is how consistent Western governments are in providing inconsistent health advice.”
The ever-changing nature and lack of clarity of the COVID-19 guidelines have made it difficult to plan people’s lives. It could also adversely affect the nature of Australia’s liberal democracy.
In an interesting article published in The Atlantic, Connor Friedersdorf acknowledges that “Australia is no doubt a democracy, with multiple political parties, regular elections and the peaceful transfer of power.” However, he still questions whether it remains so:
“But if a country forbids its own citizens to leave its borders indefinitely, thousands of its citizens are stranded abroad, has strict rules for intermediate travel, and bans citizens from leaving their homes without an excuse from the official government list, even when people are out wearing masks. And socially far away, deploying armies to enforce those rules, banning protests, and arresting and fining dissidents, is that country still a liberal democracy?
Friedersdorf’s question implies that the relentless and inflexible use of power has turned Australia into a liberal police state characterized by bureaucratic initiative and a lack of transparency.
Certainly, one can only be surprised at the unpredictability and irrationality of some of the guidelines imposed on people by Australian health bureaucrats. Two examples are enough to illustrate this point.
First, if residents of New South Wales want to relocate to the state of Queensland, they must complete a Border Declaration Pass with proof of their residence. They will then be provided with the scheduled entry date and the scheduled airport of entry for entry into the state.
It usually takes ten days to respond. However, Queensland authorities have announced that this period could be extended due to many applications for relocation.
The number of quarantine rooms and when they will be available, rather than on, will affect any delayed relocation plan (which is an important effort for families and individuals).
Second, the supply of alcohol to residents of certain apartment blocks in the NSW is being heavily policed with restrictions on the daily use of beverages. For example, in some housing units, residents are entitled to only one six-pack of beer, or a bottle of wine, or 375 ml a day in some housing.
These rules were introduced to ensure the safety of their staff and residents. But how can the police issue such an order? Do they want to check every resident’s shopping order? Or perhaps the involvement of the police would not be necessary considering the massive looting taking place in the Covid-19 era?
These guidelines have fueled the doomsday predictions of the media in a growing two-tier society in Australia.
The New South Wales Premier warned that “vaccinated people in New South Wales could be barred from their position and denied freedom of movement even after receiving the state’s 100% double dose vaccine” and that “vaccine-hesitant residents … will be able to …” Not for equal freedom ‘let everyone else work hard and then come forward’.
In the same vein, the Deputy Premier of New South Wales has boldly announced that traders who accept vaccinated people will be fined hefty sums.
Private employers are also being encouraged to vaccinate their workers. For example, Qantas has announced that all people who want to fly internationally, including their crew, must be vaccinated.
These are strict orders, which will lead to a two-tier society where some people will be more privileged than others, in which the burden distribution and benefits are only involved based on the status of the human vaccine.
The intrusive intervention of the health bureaucracy in the lives of law-abiding citizens reveals that the government has shamelessly adopted paternity as a principle of law. Moreover, the implementation of this policy imposes unpopular and balanced health decisions that individuals should make on their own.
Health bureaucrats and politicians are actually embracing the nanny state, which seeks to achieve its purpose by controlling, banning or forcing the behavior of individuals.
In terms of Covid-1 of, Nanny State forces its citizens, sometimes against their will, to be vaccinated or demoted to second-class citizenship.
Nanny states can be described as the tendency of governments in the Covid-era era to oversee and influence their choices according to the health authorities ’view of“ citizens behaving like children in nurseries ”.
The underlying idea of this philosophy is that the state can make better choices for its citizens than for its citizens.
This worldview seeks to protect people where they do not want protection, “beyond consumer choice to improve public health,” according to legal scholar Katherine Pratt.
The dire prospect of a two-tier Australian society is that, even when the epidemic has subsided, Australia will change irresistibly for the worse. This is because fundamental rights will become more dependent on the generosity of the government and can be quickly deprived at the slightest provocation, especially in the field of health.
The legacy of Covid-1 of is to humiliate Australia forever and potentially transform it into a liberal state.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the author and The Epoch Times.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times