IF we want to see the transmission of this bug across the country or indeed overseas, then the process being considered by airports, airlines and governments is going to ensure exactly that.
It is a fact that these vaccines merely reduce the possibility of transmission, therefore, to reply upon vaccination in favour of pre-departure testing is complete and utter folly. The game aims to prevent anyone who is infectious from getting on to a plane in the first place and the only way to achieve that is by pre-departure testing.
It's the same principle already applied in the familiar security screening process.
The problem all along has been the inappropriate and highly inconvenient PCR testing method. Rapid Antigen Testing is the only truly effective measure to achieve the aim of reducing to acceptable levels the possibility of COVID virus transmission by air transportation.
Simply put, if it is reasonably determined (and it can be) that everyone getting on board a passenger aircraft does not have COVID-19, then logically it cannot be spread into the destination population.
Anyone in authority who by now does not understand this simple fact needs to reassess their understanding.
To not determine this biosecurity status before departure is inviting trouble, in fact, is contrary to legislation requiring anyone who has a communicable disease not to be permitted onboard a passenger aircraft.
But it seems the usual suspects are going to blunder into yet another avoidable mess.
THERE'S an old saying warning us that "power corrupts", it matters not from where the power is derived, be it fame, employment or political power.
The debate following mandatory vaccines has shown us people are willing to use language that dehumanises their opponents in the minds of their followers. Musicians, actors, politicians have taken to referring to the "unvaccinated" as "the enemy".
Recently, we've also heard a local politician declare the "tide is turning" and that "we'll be coming for the unvaccinated lock stock and barrel".
Such inflammatory language does nothing to aid discussion and only furthers the idea the other side are less than human- deserving what is coming.
I can't help but wonder, given her former military training, whether she considered the wisdom of telling her "enemy" what is in store for them?
TASTAFE, which used to be called "tech", has been an institution in Tasmania with high standards. TasTAFE gives people a pathway to a better life, a way to achieve personal goals, and supports Tasmania by providing skilled artisans. Social mobility through education.
Unfortunately, restricted funding for TasTAFE has led to a rundown institution.
This may be so that privatisation can be presented as a way to "save" it, instead of increasing funding to restore TasTAFE to provide as marvellous a community service for students as can be. The record of private training colleges in other states hasn't been good. High fees, worthless certificates, people tricked into taking courses they wouldn't complete, and colleges closing before courses were finished.
So much for the private model.
Politicians and their donors usually have enough wealth to be able to send their children to private schools and then universities. Politicians are supposed to represent and act on behalf of everyone.
Therefore, they should "Save TasTAFE".
THANK YOU to Sustainable Timber Tasmania's Suzette Weeding for her informative article (The Examiner, November 14).
It is important to learn comparative figures relating to our state's forest industries.
Readers can be assured that Tasmania's forest industries are, as the name suggests, sustainable. Forest harvesting is limited to meet building and furniture needs in such a manner that the resource will never be exhausted. Tasmania's climate and topography are such that we are blessed with large forested areas and annual replenishment that replaces the very small percentage harvested. I urge readers to travel the state's roads, noting the healthy forests that are thriving throughout.
Almost without exception those trees you see will still be there into the future.
FOLLOWING on from the "Art comes under question" story (The Examiner, November 20), is Black Space Creative's Caleb Nichols-Mansell able to define what is art, and in particular, what is Aboriginal art, so as people can avoid causing any future offence by avoiding encroaching on what now appears to have become sacred ground?
And I am talking of everyone from school kids to seniors who may happily pick up a brush and apply paint to a surface - canvas, paper, bark or anything else while unintentionally violating the sacred rights of a minority group.
Is Aboriginal art defined by subject, colour, form, shape, shading, or any other attribute, including dots per inch, or is it something only able to be determined by Aboriginals?
Sounds like art to me, but an explanation is necessary to avoid any future hint of offence to original inhabitants of the continent, otherwise, intentionally or blithely, persons will be victims of racial offence.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.