Often we get criticised on our Facebook page for being Nats.

This of course is not true. The accusation normally arrives on our comments section when an unsuspecting tribal labour supporter sees us posting a “mean meme” about our Prime Minister.

Seems the humour is lost on many and they lash out, just as tribal party supporters do.

In these instances, I am reminded of what others comment about on our page about labour and National. That is that the two parties are just different wings of the same bird.

Sadly this is largely true. The two parties are often more similar to each other than having major points of difference. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is often the result of a change in Government.

But it takes more than just two wings for a bird to fly.

This weeks comments from David Seymour show that when it comes to COVID, he is now to be added to this same said bird, I would suggest the tail feathers.

Why? You might ask, well I’ll tell you.

Seymour may be ringing the right bells in regards to the dangers of creating seperate classes based on race. Something that Labour are hell bent on pushing through.

But then he does exactly the same thing in relation to the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated.

Seymour gave a short speech recently in parliament. His preamble attempts to create the illusion that he is in full support of freedom of choice and same rights for all in regard to vaccinations.

Starting his speech with this deception he states he doesn’t believe in mandating vaccinations.

Great start David, but this is a statement that cannot be followed by “but” of any description.

And boy did Seymour’s “but” nullify this obfuscation that he is pro freedom of choice.

He goes on to say that you don’t need to be compelled to be vaccinated, but those that are vaccinated can stipulate that they will not transact with a person unless they are vaccinated.

Let that sink in for a few seconds. What he just said is if you are not vaccinated, then you don’t have the right to transact with those that are vaccinated.

This is purely compelling all to get a vaccination through stealth.

It’s the kind of influence one uses on a disobedient child. “Finish your dinner or you don’t get to use your iPad”

Except this is way worse than influencing your children with the harmless threat of no iPad.

What Seymour is saying is, get the jab or don’t expect to be able to go to places like supermarkets, petrol stations, your chemist or hospital.

Your choice, but if you don’t then you will no longer be allowed to interact with those that got their jab.

If you have the freedom to not take a medication, but by choosing not to, no one will trade with you. Then what is the different to holding a gun against your head?

Compelling someone to take the vaccination may be justified in certain circumstances. But these would need to be true differentials of life versus death.

If by not taking the vaccine you are endangering your fellow man. This could be reason to stipulate you can’t interact with the vaccinated.

In order for this kind of edict to be valid, the virus would need to be less survivable than 99.97%

What that % is I’m not sure, but it needs to be less than 3 in 10,000 that catch it may perish.

Next, the vaccine would need to actually stop transmission. This is the point of a vaccine. Herd immunity is achieved by stopping transmission.

Regardless of how deadly the virus is or isn’t, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent you passing it on, then it’s not protecting your fellow man.

We then get to the safety of the vaccine. Whilst the numbers of fatalities and severe adverse reactions are relatively low compared to the numbers of vaccinations. There are significantly higher issues with this vaccine.

4.11 deaths per 100,000 and a much higher amount of severe reactions occur from this vaccine. Also there are unknown long term affects based on the fact it’s still a trial medication..

Again a number that might be okay if the virus had a much lower survival rate. However 99.999% survival rate for the under 50’s and a figure that only becomes more worrisome than 99% for the very elderly, does not justify draconian laws.

There may be a time and a place where the greater good of survival would require a Government to compel its citizens to lose their liberty.

But it is unforgivable to suggest that we create two classes of citizen when both the vaccinated and unvaccinated have the same ability to catch, transmit and perish from the disease.

The vaccination may well have benefits such as reducing your own risk but even that is not a certainty. The evidence we have of the efficacy of the current vaccines, isn’t such that makes forcing people to take it justifiable.

Shame on you David!