WHO says it can't rule out airborne spread of COVID-19, so what does this change? “The original statement by the WHO that [COVID-19] is [only] spread by droplets and contact is not based on any evidence at all, they just pulled that out of a hat and said it, and then anyone who tried to say any differently was held to a different standard of proof," says biosecurity expert Professor Raina Macintyre from the University of New South Wales.“ ... “Growing evidence about airborne transmission tells us that some indoor spaces may be riskier than we originally thought, in particular ones involving crowds or where there is limited fresh air flow. “This means one thing — ventilation is critical. At home this is simple, open more windows and doors when you have people gathering in one room or better yet, gather outside. "As long as you're at a reasonable distance, the risk is basically non-existent [outside]," Professor Morawska says.““ From the ABC news this morning.
https://news.yahoo.com/australia-offers-safe-haven-hong-kongers-sparking-china-071716588.html Australia offers safe haven to Hong Kongers, sparking China fury Australia offered pathways to permanent residency for thousands of people from Hong Kong on Thursday in response to China's crackdown on dissent, drawing a furious reply from Beijing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government was suspending its extradition agreement with the city and, in addition to extending the visas of 10,000 Hong Kongers already in the country, threw open the door to thousands more wanting to start a new life Down Under. Morrison said the decisions were taken in response to China's imposition last week of a tough new security law in Hong Kong, which he said "constitutes a fundamental change of circumstances" for the semi-autonomous territory. "Australia is adjusting its laws, our sovereign laws, our sovereign immigration programme, things that we have responsibility for and jurisdiction over, to reflect the changes that we're seeing take place there," he said during a press conference. Beijing shot back, condemning the Australian announcements as violations of "fundamental principles of international relations". "China... reserves the right to take further reactions, all consequences will be borne by Australia," warned Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian. . . . Question. Why did Australia do it? Really. Moi
I've got a lot on my plate atm but this has to be one of the top of my list doco's to watch. So important for Australia and its future, Central Bankers.... becoming a dirty word right now for everyone The Battle for the Bank: Australia's Struggle for Monetary Sovereignty
Oh c'mon. There are lots of Humanitarian peoples seeking immigration to Australia. Special consideration for Hong Kong people is . . . not worth the benefits. Going to cost Australians in "welfare" for housing, medical care, etc. And a politically charged move against China. Why not starving Africans in Sudan? If you must, humanitarian. Years ago allowed a population from Cuba to "boat" to shores. Look how well that worked out. Reminds me of the new Muslim population in Northern Europe, just less violent Oh The Humanity!
The Hong Kong Chinese are Free thinking, industrious and smart, anyone who are escaping communism should be given consideration imo
I don’t know if resettlement is the best way to deal with famine. We already have a sizeable Sudanese community in Australia.
Witnesses say Australian SAS soldiers were involved in mass shooting of unarmed Afghan civilians Is the military something which shouldn’t be examined too closely? Should we just accept that these things happen In the heat of battle and that there will always be incidents such as this?
Absolutely not. These sorts of incidents should be investigated and if wrongdoing is found the perpetrators should face prosecution. If not you become no better than the terrorists you are fighting.
I agree that they need to be investigated but we seem to keep having horrible stuff like this. It was alleged that an Australian VC winner was guilty of killing an unarmed civilian in Afghanistan. Is it realistic to expect soldiers to play by the rules all the time? Is the military dehumanising or don’t they screen entrants properly, to ensure that “killers” aren’t slipping through the cracks?
It is no more realistic than expecting anyone else to play by the rules all the time but a realistic expectation of keeping to the law should never be the standard for whether investigations and prosecutions are pursued. ''Killer'' is obviously in the job description of a soldier and training a person to kill another is going to be desensitising on some level (I think dehumanising is the wrong choice of word here) but most nations have signed up to the rules of war as set out in international treaties such as the Geneva conventions. Turning a blind eye to war crimes such as killing civilians is not only morally wrong but it is also counter-effective especially in a war of insurgency where it will only aid the recruitment and civilian support of enemy combatants. ''Hearts and minds'' as first coined by the British in the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s is still the most effective way to end terrorist wars and the unlawful killing of civilians is the best way to lose the support of the civilian population.
And Fresh Water too. The area's (Victoria) forests are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, particularly higher temperatures and reduced rainfall. "I want the Australian government to tell the truth about the risks posed by climate change," she told the Financial Times. "I don't want to look towards a future where these types of bushfires are a common occurrence." https://news.yahoo.com/student-files-climate-change-lawsuit-120412843.html Student files climate change lawsuit against Australian government An Australian student has filed a lawsuit against her government for failing to make clear climate change-related risks to investors in government bonds. It is thought to be the first such case in the world. Katta O'Donnell, 23, filed the civil action in the Federal Court on Wednesday. A spokesperson for the Australian Treasury said it was aware of the case, but could not comment on the specifics. Government bonds are an investment where you lend money to the government. In return, it promises to pay back a certain sum of money in the future, as well as interest in the meantime. "Australia is materially exposed and susceptible" to climate change risks, according to the statement filed with the Federal Court of Australia in Victoria state. It alleges that the country's economy and the national reputation in international financial markets will be significantly affected by the Australian government's response to climate change. The risks are crucial to an investor's decision to trade in government bonds and an investor is entitled to be informed of those risks, it adds. The student is seeking a declaration that the government breached its duty of disclosure and an injunction pausing further promotion of such bonds until it complies. "O'Donnell v The Commonwealth is the first case in the world dealing with climate as a material risk to the sovereign bond market," her lawyers say on their website. . . . And That Is Why I Support The Solar Powered desalination and transport of H2O to establish The Great Fresh Water Lakes in the Middle, Middle of Australia. Similar to California's Salton Sea. They may start fresh and end up salty anyway(s). A " + " for the local ecology and agriculture. Economical growth will pay off the investment. Think "Chinese". Long term! Moi Australia PRIME No
You realise these folk are quite rich, dontcha? There are children starving in other parts of the world.
Are OZ's paying attention? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/whats-up-with-australia.575122/ Home Forums > General Political Chat > Coronavirus (COVID-19) News What's Up With Australia and don't miss page 8 #194
yes we've had early cold weather in May and now again...I'm hanging for Spring, planted some vegie seeds earlier in the week for my apocalypse garden
