Australia ends pandemic wage subsidy program despite job loss warnings

Lockdowns are only sustained by people being paid to sit at home to do nothing

That is false, lockdowns are defended by scientific studies that prove them as one part of the effective tools to control the pandemic, if the conditions are appropriate the value gained from a lockdown is much higher than the price to put it in place. Unfortunately there will always be people that are proud to deny science and scientific evidence, so for them the pandemic is just another common cold, and masks and lockdowns useless. They can choose to live on that false reality, but fortunately they cannot choose to impose those mistaken views onto others.

The false Gods of central bank fiat money are only succeeding in digging their people further and further into debt bondage. It’s patently mad how much largesse has gone to pad companies’ bottom lines and bolster fat cat executives rewards, exempting those most able to shoulder more of the burden from having to do any heavy lifting. As for the sheer lunacy of augmenting welfare payments to the point where Aussies on welfare were making more than people here earn working full time, the less said, the better. They say the Chinese characters for ‘crisis’ are supposed to represent ‘opportunity’. If so, Australia has totally squandered the chance to get its house in order.

Unfortunately there will always be people that are proud to deny science and scientific evidence

Indeed, such as those irrational antiscience people who deny the scientific investigations of a top epidemiologist such as John Ioannidis who concluded that lockdowns did not significantly affect case growth.

virusrex

That is false, lockdowns are defended by scientific studies that prove them as one part of the effective tools to control the pandemic,

One wonders what these "scientific studies" are actually claiming. If they are saying that eliminating contact between humans eliminates virus transmission, they are just stating the obvious (reminds me of those global warming studies that "prove" that CO2 is one of the many greenhouse gases, as if anyone ever doubted that).

Or are they actually looking at the health and economic effects of locking people in their homes and destroying economies and weighing that against the expected reduction in transmission? What studies are those?

Seems to me "science" is used as a verbal club these days very much like "god" is used by religionist.s

Indeed, such as those irrational antiscience people who deny the scientific investigations of a top epidemiologist such as John Ioannidis who concluded that lockdowns did not significantly affect case growth.

One single researcher, heavily criticized for being in deep conflict of interest and producing faulty science easily disproved is a perfectly valid thing to dismiss. It is very easy to research the official position of scientific and medical associations that deal with the pandemic and their effects and see how many say lockdowns have no effect, no organization has an official position this, so it is natural to understand it is not the scientific consensus. On the other hand bitterly complaining about conflicts of interest for every single study that concludes something that you don't like while ignoring completely a disqualifying CoI as long as the disgraced author concludes something that you do like is not easy to understand at all, at least without double standards.

One wonders what these "scientific studies" are actually claiming. If they are saying that eliminating contact between humans eliminates virus transmission, they are just stating the obvious (reminds me of those global warming studies that "prove" that CO2 is one of the many greenhouse gases, as if anyone ever doubted that).

Why wonder, the scientific studies and official positions of scientific and medial organizations are open to see, it is not like it is some kind of hidden knowledge that only few people can ever see.

Seems to me "science" is used as a verbal club these days very much like "god" is used by religionist.s

That would indicate terribly lack of interest, science is open and present, not a god that you will never see. How many searches on pubmed have you done?

Lockdowns can or not be justified in specific situations, it is all about cost/benefit. So it can be argued that in one case it is not justified and it can be true, what is not true is that lockdowns have no effect, that is easily demonstrated as false.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30785-4/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(20)32034-1/fulltext

That is false, lockdowns are defended by scientific studies that prove them as one part of the effective tools to control the pandemic,

Complete Nonsens!

I recommend you again to get away from your theoretical scientific studies and finally start to see the reality!

Complete Nonsens!

I recommend you again to get away from your theoretical scientific studies and finally start to see the reality!

So you cannot prove your uninformed opinion is true, and try to ignore three perfectly valid scientific studies that prove lockdowns have an important effect slowing down the spread of the pandemic?

Sorry, the studies are more than enough to prove your invalid conclusions wrong, if you don't like them it is too bad but unless you have more and better data to prove the contrary then thinking they must be wrong just because you don't like their conclusions is just an irrational belief.

skip the middle company and just provide the universal basic income to people directly. They were anyway!

Without the comfort cash people will finally rise up