Should Covid Rule Breakers Be Named and Shamed?

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 

  KK25 on 13/06/2021 - 13:36

  +1

  Never name and shame! In Vietnam, they practiced that, but Covid is still oubreaking at the level the state unable to control. So I think no benefit of that at all.

  The only "benefit" is some people committed suicide because they couldn't handle the social shame. Imagine a person who lives thousand miles away abuses them all days… This is not a thing a kindness person should do.

  I think putting them into jail is enough, because they are isolated from the society, and people who lives nearby also acknowledge too. And that's enough. No need for a person who lives far away to know about them.

• 

  forumninja on 13/06/2021 - 13:39

  In most Australian courts when sentencing a crime, a judge can take into account extra-curial punishment such as public humiliation from naming and shaming.

  See the example of the Queensland young women who breached COVID restrictions during 2020's Melbourne lockdown. They suffered public humiliation and ended up with no conviction, no fine, no gaol.

  By publicly naming and shaming the individuals, they suffer some shame but they will probably end up getting out with a lower fine and no gaol time.
  In my opinion, the sentence of the lower fine and no gaol is a lesser deterrent compared to a higher fine and gaol to those who break the rules and try to get away with it.

  • 

    Eeples on 20/06/2021 - 17:43

    These two women received 80 hours of community service each.

    But I do agree with the point you are making.

• 

  dealhunter21 on 13/06/2021 - 13:49

  No, naming and shaming will only promote fear of getting tested for anyone out there who may have done the wrong thing. It is in the best interest of the community to promote testing to all those who are sick.

  Imagine if you had done the wrong thing and you have COVID, but you didn't get tested because you were afraid of be named and shamed. So, instead, you avoided being tested and carried on your day spreading your potential disease. That does no good for the community

  Imo it should not be a no in order to protect their privacy. But a no, to encourage testing when sick.

• 

  Dack Smith on 13/06/2021 - 17:38

  -2

  Should Victoria be named and shamed?

• 

  overall on 13/06/2021 - 18:43

  Hm. How do you know if someone is offending?

  Generally speaking, it seems that the restrictions do not apply to all people, although I haven't bothered to read any of the relevant official documentation as of yet, so don't quote me on that.

  You must wear a mask when you leave your home.
  You must not travel beyond a 10km radius of your HOME.

  (not the actual wording but you get the idea).

  So that's already thousands of Melbournians I suspect, who due to a technicality, are not obliged to carry masks, and are not obliged to comply with travel restrictions or curfews, since they do not reside in proper residential dwellings, and so therefore fall into the 'homeless' category (either literally or technically).

  Last time I checked, the government still hadn't modified their restrictions to be all inclusive of diversity - so as to make room for the homeless.

  Oh well. I think I already sent them an email about it, but they're obviously not concerned.
  Why would you not correct the wording though? How hard is it to do that?

  All I know, is that the wording will never be corrected.

  Does it really matter anyway? Has the homeless population been affected by covid infections/deaths at all? Has anyone, like the government, even collected data on that?

  You would think so, given all the mingling they do, all the sharing of spaces, and watering holes, re-purposing hard rubbish and butt cigarettes. At least, many of them do. Of course, many homeless people are couch surfing as we speak, watching tele in front of a heater, or working hard at their jobs, or they're having bangers and mash for dinner at a table. You don't have to be be literally sleeping on the streets or in a car to be deemed homeless.

  As for being a dibber dobber - don't forget that 2020 was a mother of a year. I personally wouldn't meddle with people too much, there's a lot of weirdos out there. I was at a laundrette the other week and a woman was waiting inside, she full on stared/glared/scowled at me, which annoyed me for some reason, so I asked her why she wasn't wearing a mask, just to be a little bit cheeky. She did not hesitate to tell me to go f%@k myself because it's none of my fu%&*#g business. She then glared at the washing machine, trying to suppress her reaction, but you could see, she was a raging bull. People like that are cooked for life, in my opinion. If I'd said another thing to her, even 'goodbye', she probably would have clobbered me.

  • 

    RocketSwitch on 14/06/2021 - 08:40

    Didn't you hear? The government is listening to their expert medical advice. The same experts who said masks were useless.

    So, enjoy people. We were never free anyway. The veil has finally been taken off.

    If I had my way, I wouldn't have any restrictions. I would say for those at risk or those that want to risk it, go out at your own peril. Here is what we recommend.

    If we are in a deadly pandemic, then why is there exemptions? Why? It's like saying, ah, it's okay if this particular people get killed. No worries. Whatever. Nuclear fallout is nuclear fallout. There's no exemptions in that shit.

    That's it.

    • 

      overall on 17/06/2021 - 01:10

      It's funny the way the entire world mismanaged infection control like a bunch of lemmings.

      So they determined that the elderly and auto-immune compromised were the most vulnerable, but failed to elaborate further. Still, given that limited knowledge, why weren't these vulnerable people isolated from the rest of the population from the very beginning?

      China built a hospital in two weeks. What did we do?

      Here's a loose theory: The 1% like being the 1%. So naturally they have to hire really smart, gifted people to make their decisions for them, in order to preserve/grow their wealth. These are very, very smart people running the show. So smart that they've convinced nearly everyone that it's some kind of 'patriarchy' running the show.

      None of this was a result of human error, ignorance, or incompetence, but quite the opposite really. The implications of which are harsh, but that is nature for you.

      There are no real countries (of significant standing). Just capitalists. Most so-called leaders are typically wealthy and powerful capitalists. People like that, tend to like themselves, and they tend to like other people who are like them. Furthermore, people like that, tend not to like poor people. They care about their capital (i.e the working class) and their overly dependent passive consumption of products and services and governance/capitalism, in the same way they care about money, because their whole deluded self-worth is built upon it. Solving world problems is the equivalent to death for a capitalist.

      That's why they only look after their own kind. Most normal people look after their own kind, but also other kinds. Psychopathic bosses (i.e. capitalists) don't care about you or your rules/boundaries, but somehow require you to care about theirs. Think about that. We can't be as ruthless as them, but we have other ways, I'm sure. Aaron Swartz was onto a good thing. Who knows what could happen if we weren't so broken down and socially/politically divided, as some would have it. As long as it stays this way, we'll always be ignorant of hegemonic oppression. There'll always be confusion and mess, wars, conspiracies, smoke and mirrors. Like this 'pandemic', where lockdowns and weird weather seem to go hand in hand.

• 

  rgr on 13/06/2021 - 19:39

  -1

  LMAO wtf is this shit? soviet russia/nazi germany? imagine snitching on people for exercising their right to do whatever they want

• 

  forumninja on 18/06/2021 - 17:38

  +1

  They got fined $4,000 each.

• 1
• 2
• 3