Am I living in a Beckett play? Or is Orwell’s 1984 coming true?
The cult-like obsession with the so-called Covid vaccines continues unabated, even as around the globe there is increasing evidence these substances are ineffective, and they have already seriously harmed more people than we would have accepted from any medicine or vaccine before 2020.
Still, the jabbing must continue, no matter what. And it doesn’t even matter whether you’ve already had Covid and therefore gained far superior natural immunity. You’ve gotta get the jab regardless.
For about 3-4% of the adult population, the deliberately unvaccinated, Australia has effectively turned into what it once was: a prison island.
On 25 March 2022 federal health minister Greg Hunt published a media release with some good and bad news.
The good news: The farcical Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Declaration 2020 will not be renewed beyond 17 April. About time!
The bad news: Those Australians who haven’t rolled up their sleeves to get a Covid ‘vaccine’ still can’t leave the country.
There can be no conceivable justification for this continued human rights abuse. Read the gory details below (it gets a little technical, but the details matter!).
Following the above-mentioned media release, on 30 March the minister made the Biosecurity (Exit Requirements) Repeal Determination 2022, the sole purpose of which was to repeal the Biosecurity (Exit Requirements) Determination 2020, which stopped anybody from flying to several pacific island countries, and which had been made under section 45(2) Biosecurity Act 2015. This original determination is not so interesting, but what is interesting about this is the following passage from the explanatory statement for the repeal instrument:
The Health Minister, on advice from the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, is no longer satisfied that the Determination is necessary to prevent the risk of COVID-19 spreading to these other countries. That is, those screening requirements applying to Australians leaving Australian territory and bound for those destinations are no longer necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to Australia’s neighbouring countries, in the light of the implementation of other mitigation measures, rising national COVID-19 vaccination rates in Australia and consistent with the public health advice.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00433/Explanatory%20Statement/Text
Then, on 1 April Greg Hunt registered two determinations that affect us for the unforeseeable future:
The Biosecurity (Exit Requirements) Determination 2022 dated 24 March and commencing 18 April (the day after the emergency situation ends), requires anyone leaving Australian territory as passengers to be fully vaccinated against Covid, unless they have a medical certificate or an exemption applies. The Biosecurity (Entry Requirements—Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Amendment (No. 1) Determination 2022 is essentially forcing those entering Australia to make a declaration about their Covid vaccination status.
The relevant provisions state:
5 Requirements for individuals leaving Australian territory as passengers
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00500
(1) This section applies to an individual who is leaving Australian territory as a passenger on an outgoing aircraft or vessel unless an exemption set out in section 6 applies to the individual.
(2) If a relevant official asks the individual to do so, the individual must produce, to the relevant official:
(a) evidence that the individual:
(i) has received a course of vaccinations with one or more accepted COVID‑19 vaccines in accordance with a schedule for receiving that course of vaccinations that is accepted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (whether or not the individual has also received a booster dose of an accepted COVID‑19 vaccine); and
(ii) received the last vaccination in the course of vaccinations at least 7 days before the day the flight of the aircraft or the voyage of the vessel is scheduled to commence; or
(b) evidence, provided by a medical practitioner, that the individual has a medical contraindication to COVID‑19 vaccines.
So section 5 suggests that a border official may ask you to produce vaccination evidence, not that they have do so. But what is one to make of this? Does that mean that theoretically you can leave the country, but you have to be so lucky as to get through the airport without getting asked by a border official for a vaccine certificate? It’s a big risk to take, and so effectively this is still preventing unvaccinated people like myself from leaving the country.
What’s interesting once again is the explanatory memorandum covering both determinations which states:
These changes will help maintain the integrity of Australia’s border when responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in a measured and proportionate way. […] The Health Minister, on advice from the Chief Medical Officer, has also made a new exit requirement to commence after the Overseas Travel Ban is lifted to require outgoing travellers to provide their vaccination status to a relevant official upon request. This will compliment airline policies not to uplift unvaccinated travellers. […] The Health Minister, on advice from the CMO, is satisfied that the requirements are appropriate or proportionate to the risk of preventing the spread of COVID-19 to other countries. Unvaccinated travellers pose a risk to the community they are in and the location’s hospital system as they are at greater risk of serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19, and are more likely to transmit the infection to others.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00500/Explanatory%20Statement/Text
How could this exit requirement possibly be considered measured and proportionate? The minister himself allows the emergency declaration to expire, in other words he acknowledges that there is no longer an emergency, and he states in the EM mentioned reasons for ditching aother exit requirement instrument.
The pinnacle is this paragraph:
COVID-19 has entered Australia and represents a severe and immediate threat to human health in Australia as it has the ability to cause high levels of morbidity and mortality and to disrupt the Australian community socially and economically.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L00500/Explanatory%20Statement/Text
To finally and rightly announce the end to the emergency declaration, and in the same breath to state that there is a severe and immediate threat – despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary from around the world – couldn’t be more contradictory.
At least some parliamentarians are criticizing this approach. On the same day the following exchange took place in the Australian Senate:
Senator RENNICK: This is my last question, and, Minister, I may have to get you to follow this up with Greg Hunt, who I did write to about this. Why are we stopping unvaccinated people from travelling overseas? Why do they have to get permission, if they’ve got an Australian passport, to leave? I cannot for the life of me see the health risks in an unvaccinated person leaving the country? It seems to me that it contradicts the Prime Minister’s statements, and Professor Kelly mentioned earlier that he doesn’t believe in mandates. Why do we have to restrict people from travelling freely outside of Australia if they’re unvaccinated? I would have thought it would reduce the risk, given there would be fewer people in the country?
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/estimate/25683/&sid=0002
Senator Ruston: I think I know the answer to that, but I’m hoping that the health officials that are in Minister Hunt’s office are listening. Professor Kelly is the expert; he can answer that.
Prof. Kelly: As the provider of the medical advice, I can stand by that. As you know, we’ve had various iterations—I think there were eight emergency declarations after the first emergency declaration under the Biosecurity Act, in early 2020. A decision has been made by the government, on my advice, to not renew that emergency declaration after 18 April. There are several elements that were in place and that are not going to be renewed during that period—cruise ships will come back, preflight testing will not be compulsory, and a few other measures. But it was seen, on my advice, that the safest way was to have a transition out of some of these other measures around vaccination for inward and outward travel. Actually one of the main reasons for providing that is for protection of the rest of the world, recognising, as we’ve talked about already, in response to Senator O’Sullivan’s question—
Senator RENNICK: That is not really our responsibility. The rest of the world doesn’t have the same requirement, so—
Prof. Kelly: Actually it is, because we are signed up to a treaty called the International Health Regulations, and there is a specific component of the Biosecurity Act which addresses that matter about protection for others.
Senator RENNICK: Are you saying that other countries have regulations that stop their unvaccinated people from leaving the country as well?
Prof. Kelly: I’d have to take that on notice as to which other countries might have that, but I understand there are still restrictions in relation to vaccination on both inward and outward travel.
Senator RENNICK: I know. That’s the question I’m asking you. Why is there that restriction and what is the health advice on that?
Prof. Kelly: I’ve shared what I can with you, recognising that’s health advice I’ve given to the minister.
Senator RENNICK: So it’s not health advice; it’s because we signed up to a treaty?
Prof. Kelly: No. There are certain elements within the Biosecurity Act about protection for other countries related to diseases of concern such as COVID-19.
Senator RENNICK: Can you take that on notice to give me the actual sections of the Biosecurity Act?
Senator O’SULLIVAN: Are you seeing a sunset on that requirement?
Prof. Kelly : There’s no specific sunset, but the plan with many of these things is to not stop everything at the same time. So that requirement for incoming and outgoing international travel to be vaccinated is remaining for the time being but not under the emergency powers.
In other words, we’re being effectively locked up to protect the rest of the world, despite the express recognition that there is no longer an emergency situation? Absurdities upon absurdities.
By the way, Kelly probably refers to Article 23 of the International Health Regulations, which reads:
1. Subject to applicable international agreements and relevant articles of these Regulations, a State Party may require for public health purposes, on arrival or departure:
https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1
(a) with regard to travellers: (i) information concerning the traveller’s destination so that the traveller may be contacted; (ii) information concerning the traveller’s itinerary to ascertain if there was any travel in or near an affected area or other possible contacts with infection or contamination prior to arrival, as well as review of the traveller’s health documents if they are required under these Regulations; and/or (iii) a non-invasive medical examination which is the least intrusive examination that would achieve the public health objective;
(b) inspection of baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, postal parcels and human remains.
2. On the basis of evidence of a public health risk obtained through the measures provided in paragraph 1 of this Article, or through other means, States Parties may apply additional health measures, in accordance with these Regulations, in particular, with regard to a suspect or affected traveller, on a case-by-case basis, the least intrusive and invasive medical examination that would achieve the public health objective of preventing the international spread of disease.
3. No medical examination, vaccination, prophylaxis or health measure under these Regulations shall be carried out on travellers without their prior express informed consent or that of their parents or guardians, except as provided in paragraph 2 of Article 31, and in accordance with the law and international obligations of the State Party.
4. Travellers to be vaccinated or offered prophylaxis pursuant to these Regulations, or their parents or guardians, shall be informed of any risk associated with vaccination or with non-vaccination and with the use or non-use of prophylaxis in accordance with the law and international obligations of the 20 State Party. States Parties shall inform medical practitioners of these requirements in accordance with the law of the State Party.
5. Any medical examination, medical procedure, vaccination or other prophylaxis which involves a risk of disease transmission shall only be performed on, or administered to, a traveller in accordance with established national or international safety guidelines and standards so as to minimize such a risk.
Australia doesn’t have to stop unvaccinated citizens from leaving the country – it wants to.
On 6 April Kelly stated that the Australian healthcare system is copying well despite high numbers (fudged and meaningless as they are), and there is a shift towards focusing on the most at-risk populations (which should have been done two years ago). He admits that he actually advised the minister to make the determination to lock up unvaccinated Australians. This is borne out in the following exchange in the Senate:
Senator ANTIC: Thank you. I’ve got a different line of questions, and these might be for the department more broadly. As it stands right now, I understand that, if you’re an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, you can’t leave Australia unless you’re fully vaccinated and yet foreign citizens are able to leave at any time. What is the rationale behind this? What is the science behind this? Is this not more the sort of thing that we’d see in communist North Korea—stopping citizens leaving our country?
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/estimate/25695/&sid=0002
Prof. Kelly: I think Senator Rennick asked me the same question last week and I gave the answer: there has been a change in the biosecurity arrangements. It is now, under the Biosecurity Act, a requirement of anyone leaving Australia, regardless of their visa status, to provide evidence of vaccination, if asked by an official.
Senator ANTIC: Why?
Prof. Kelly: That is under the biosecurity legislation. It was a decision of government.
Senator ANTIC: I’m asking you why that is a requirement. Somebody can answer that question surely.
Prof. Kelly: Yes. I provided advice to the minister to make that decision.
Senator ANTIC: What was that advice?
Prof. Kelly: The advice, in relation to people exiting Australia, was in relation to our obligations under the International Health Regulations for protecting other countries. We have—
Senator ANTIC: Just on that, what is the science behind that decision, given that we know—I think we would all accept this—that transmission is irrelevant? When vaccinated you are effectively as infectious as you were if you were not vaccinated.
Prof. Kelly: That’s not a true statement.
Senator ANTIC: That is a true statement. That’s agreed to by almost all experts.
Prof. Kelly: It’s not a true statement.
Senator ANTIC: What degree of benefit are you given by vaccination, in terms of dampening down your transmission, for want of a better way of putting it?
Prof. Kelly: There is evidence about that and I can provide it on notice.
Senator ANTIC: But how much? Is it one per cent, is it two per cent?
Prof. Kelly: I’ll provide that on notice.
Senator ANTIC: No; you can tell me right now.
CHAIR: Senator Antic, the witness has agreed to provide it on notice.
Senator ANTIC: How can we not know the answer to that right now?
CHAIR: Please do not harass the witnesses.
Senator ANTIC: Australian citizens are being stopped from going overseas for this. It should be a fairly simple question.
Prof. Kelly: I’ll provide that information on notice.
We shall see whether that no doubt cherry-picked and twisted bit of medical information will be provided.
But this is not all. The language used on the Department of Home Affairs is unclear at best. The page advising unvaccinated travellers with regards to leaving Australia states as of 14 April:
From 18 April 2022, travel restrictions for Australian citizens and permanent residents are being eased, but you may still be asked about your vaccination status.
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/covid19/unvaccinated-travellers/australian-citizens-and-pr/leaving-australia
The Australian Government recommends passengers departing Australia be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and travel with proof of vaccination status documentation. Unvaccinated Australian citizens and permanent residents are strongly discouraged from international travel due to the health risks.
Of course, there is a hook. When you return, the various states and territories are responsible for conditions. In the case of my home state of New South Wales, you have to enter 7-day compulsory hotel quarantine which costs $1,500 for one adult, $2,500 for a couple, and children over 3 years cost $500 each.
So even if theoretically you could take the risk of leaving the country, the state governments can spoil the party by imposing a quarantine requirement that is not exactly cheap.
In the meantime, it seems most other countries, and most countries are WHO members, don’t lock up their own citizens. Certainly, this is not the case for my country of birth, Switzerland, a WHO member from day one. As a citizen, I can even enter the country coming from Australia, a country which is considered a risk country.
What does the WHO say about international travel? The WHO advice for international traffic in relation to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) issued on 30 Nov 2021 references the Statement on the ninth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which says relevantly:
Do NOT require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel as the only pathway or condition permitting international travel given limited global access and inequitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. State Parties should consider a risk-based approach to the facilitation of international travel by lifting or modifying measures, such as testing and/or quarantine requirements, when appropriate, in accordance with the WHO guidance.
https://www.who.int/news/item/26-10-2021-statement-on-the-ninth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
So not even the WHO expects countries to lock up their non-vaccinated population.
The social and economic (and may I add psychological and medical) damage our country has had to endure was mainly because of the completely overblown and disproportionate response to a virus which was so obviously not the threat it was made out to be from March 2020 for anyone who was still willing and able to withstand the real illness spreading around the world: the planet’s biggest ever mass psychosis.
By the way, the Biosecurity (Exit Requirements) Determination 2022 will lapse automatically only on 1 April 2032! So the unvaccinated face being locked in their country for 10 years unless someone actually repeals this abomination.
And it is worth remembering: the federal government has always maintained that vaccination will remain voluntary. Both the prime minister and the health minister repeatedly made statements to that effect.
So, in light of all these promises, how else is one to perceive this double-speak other than as the ongoing attempt to twist and stab the arms of the remaining hold-outs. At least French president Macron was honest enough to say he wanted to piss off the unvaccinated by making their lives hell.
Well, I suppose we are an insignificant minority, but this minority of people who refuse to be part of this giant medical experiment could actually make the difference in the upcoming federal election by either voting for a minor party (the major parties are all beholden to the mainstream Covid cult), or throwing their compulsory votes away one way or another.
The reality is that most of our politicians have developed such tunnel vision, it matters not that one of the most respected scientists in the world, one of those who have kept a cool head throughout, has called on public health officials to declare the end of the pandemic. It matters not that a number of people have pointed out that the recently celebrated study claiming that Ivermectin is ineffective is riddled with flaws.
