The Scary News from Japan … and Australia By Brian Simpson

     I admire the Japanese, not in the cringing way places like American Renaissance does (they are so much smarter than us), but with respect as a highly capable society. Thus, if Japan is onto something, just as if Israel was, it would be foolish not to look and learn. Consider Japan’s present response to the coronavirus pandemic, and yes, it is now universally admitted to be a pandemic now:
  https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/02/27/japan-to-close-schools-nationwide-in-bid-to-contain-coronavirus/

“Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo ordered the closure of all elementary, middle and high schools on Thursday until the beginning of the country’s spring holidays in late March in a bid to contain the outbreak of the coronavirus. The measure, which will cost the Japanese economy billions of dollars, will impact 12.8 million students at nearly 35,000 schools nationwide, according to the country’s education ministry. The drastic measure comes amid rapidly growing concern about the spread of the virus across Japan and other parts of Asia, as the number of untraceable cases of the virus continues to rise. Japan now has around 900 cases, including more than 700 from a quarantined cruise ship. At least eight deaths have been confirmed. “Efforts have been made to prevent the spread of infection among children in each region, and these one or two weeks will be an extremely critical period,” Abe told a meeting of key Cabinet ministers on Thursday. “The government attaches the top priority to the health and safety of children, among others.”

“We need to place top priority on the health and safety of our children, and take measures to stem the risk of many children and teachers becoming infected through gathering for long hours every day,” he told media after the meeting, adding that the world is entering “a critical phase” in their response to the epidemic. Abe’s announcement came hours after local authorities in Hokkaido, Japan’s northernmost island, announced the closure of the majority of the 1,600 elementary and junior high schools due to the high number of cases in the area, where the many of the infected are schoolchildren. “We will make our best efforts to prevent further spread of infection to protect the lives and health of the people in Hokkaido,” Hokkaido Governor Naomichi Suzuki said during a local assembly session. The Japanese car manufacturer Mitsubishi has told its entire workforce of 3,800 people to work from home. Other companies including Shiseido, Dentsu, and Panasonic have also mandated remote working at home for their staff in central Tokyo, although many other companies do not have the necessary infrastructure allowing their staff to work remotely. Such moves follow escalating measures by countries across the world to avoid a major outbreak, amid a rapidly rising number of cases around the world from Europe to the Middle East. On Thursday, the government of Saudi Arabia took the unprecedented step of suspending all foreign pilgrimages to the country five months before the annual Hajj pilgrimage.

“The kingdom’s government has decided to [suspend] entry to the kingdom for the purpose of umrah and visit to the prophet’s mosque temporarily,” the Saudi foreign ministry said in a statement, explaining that tourist visas would be denied “for those coming from countries in which the spread of the new coronavirus is a danger. They also urged Saudi citizens not to travel to places where the disease was proliferating.”

     Japan would not be going to such extremes if there was no clear and present danger from coronavirus. In Australia, there is now a response which is better than I thought would be done, given the lobbying power of the evil university sector, namely travel bans of people from China:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7mCyIRBamw&feature=emb_title
  https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2020/02/27/australia-ready-for-global-coronavirus-pandemic-extends-china-travel-ban/

     But, of course, there is dark side, with plans in the worst-case scenario of mass vaccinations and stadium quarantines:
  https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/australias-coronavirus-pandemic-plan-mass-vaccinations-and-stadium-quarantine

“Governments may order mass vaccinations of entire suburbs, cities or groups of people; sports stadia may be sequestered as quarantine sites; and police could be ordered to guard critical medical supplies under Australia’s pandemic health plans. Under worst-case scenarios being contemplated by state and federal governments, forecasts say a pandemic outbreak could last up to 10 months, and 40% of the country’s workforce could be sidelined by illness or caring for family members. Australia’s GDP could take a 10% hit. The pandemic plans have not yet been scaled up to their highest levels: Australia remains in containment mode and governments have consistently said that Australia is well-placed to deal with any outbreaks. Currently, out of 81,000 confirmed Covid-19 cases worldwide, which have caused more than 2,700 deaths, just 22 have been identified in Australia, with zero deaths.

Australian university offers up to $7,500 to students stranded in China by coronavirus travel ban
“Pandemic influenza can cause significant disruptions to the way we live as it has the potential to result in high levels of illness and death,” the Victorian government has warned in its action plan for influenza pandemic.
“The social distancing measures that may be required will have wide-ranging effects, with closure of schools and childcare services, and cancellation of public events. It is estimated that up to 40% of the workforce may withdraw from work at any one time due to illness, the need to care for family members or the fear of contracting the virus in the workplace or on public transport. “One study estimated that in a worst-case pandemic influenza scenario, Australia’s gross domestic product could suffer a decline of greater than 10%.” State and federal governments have had pandemic plans in place for years, prepared for the possibility of a novel coronavirus or a wide-scale influenza outbreak. The publicly available plans emphasise that predicting the length, severity and impact of a coronavirus – such as SARS-CoV-2 – outbreak is difficult, given a large number of unknown and variable factors. “The impact of a pandemic depends on how sick the virus makes people (clinical severity), the ability of the virus to spread between people (transmissibility), the capacity of the health system, the effectiveness of interventions and the vulnerability of the population,” the New South Wales government’s human influenza pandemic plan says. “As humans will have little or no pre-existing immunity to a pandemic virus and influenza viruses can be transmitted among people without symptoms, prevention is not considered realistic.”

     But the NSW Health plan makes a number of fundamental assumptions about a pandemic outbreak in Australia:

•    The disease is likely to originate overseas and be imported into Australia by infected travellers.
•    Border screening is ineffective because carriers can be asymptomatic.
•    Any pandemic outbreak will spread rapidly throughout the Australian community.
•    The population groups at greater risk from seasonal influenza are the elderly, young, people with chronic diseases, and communities with high numbers of at-risk individuals such as Indigenous communities.
•    Multiple pandemic waves are possible.”

     So, can the Feds just round us all up and put us in disease concentration camps, where we are certain to get infected, even if we are not? Is this how it all ends?
  https://tottnews.com/2015/05/14/new-law-forced-vaccinations-australia/

“The government expects the human control orders to be “seldom used”, but believes they are important to manage serious communicable diseases, especially in light of the recent ‘Ebola epidemic’. An article from The Guardian reads: “New human biosecurity control orders enable a health department official to force anyone with signs or symptoms of a listed disease to isolate themselves or face arrest. The director of human biosecurity can also order someone to be vaccinated or treated. The government expects the human control orders to be “seldom used” but believes they are important to manage serious communicable diseases, especially in light of the recent Ebola epidemic. The legislation allows biosecurity officers to conduct searches without warrants in emergencies related to pests or disease. Several people have arrived in Australia from Africa with Ebola symptoms since the disease took hold in 2014, but there have been no confirmed cases.” The second chapter of the legislative piece details control orders given to those individuals suspected of showing symptoms determined by the Health Minister, and the restricted movements and tests required if a person is categorised under the new law. This includes limitations of movement, movement to a ‘secure area’ and more – without being proven to have the disease at any particular moment in the process: “A human biosecurity control order may only be applied if an individual has signs or symptoms of (or has been exposed to) a listed human disease, or if the individual has not complied with an entry requirement under clause 44, and therefore poses a risk to the broader community. These strict limitations in the application of a human biosecurity control order ensure that measures applied relate only to the management of a listed human disease or entry requirements and are a proportionate and legitimate limitation to an individual’s freedom of movement.” The legislation continues to describe the procedure associated with the new control orders: “An ill individual may be required by a human biosecurity control order to attend a specified medical facility to facilitate assessment and treatment of ill individuals, including undergoing an examination, providing body samples for diagnosis, treatment or undergoing a vaccination It is essential, where an individual is suspected of suffering from a listed human disease, that the individual be moved to an appropriate place where medical treatment and privacy can be assured.”

     The new legislation, in the current form, was introduced to Parliament on November 27th, 2014 – although reports suggest an original document was tabled in 2012 and overshadowed by the election process at the time.
After multiple modifications, the Bill was introduced to the Senate on February 11th, and passed both levels of government on May 13th, 2015. The government, who are mainly focusing on the agricultural protection aspect of the Bill, believes the new laws are vital to maximise Australia’s agricultural productivity and prevent significant damage to the sector. Australia’s agricultural exports were worth $39.4bn in 2013-14, according to reports.

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
One section of the legislation that has civil liberty campaigners questioning the authoritarian approach of the new legislation, is the section that pertains to burden of proof in suspected cases – both relating to human health and agriculture. The Bill outlines a reversing the legality surrounding burden of proof, placing it in the hands of the defendant, as opposed to the traditional approach of the prosecution. Reversing the evidential burden means that a defendant, rather than the prosecution, is responsible for presenting evidence to a court about a particular fact. It is then up to the prosecution to establish that this evidence is incorrect or does not apply. This can be justified “in circumstances where the facts in question are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant and it would be difficult or expensive for the prosecution to provide evidence, but the evidence is readily and cheaply available for the defendant.”

     Well, let us go to the Biosecurity Act 2015 and see. Here is a summary from Part 3 of the Act:

“Under Division 2, a human biosecurity control order can be imposed on an individual if the individual may have a listed human disease. A human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to an individual may require the individual to comply with certain biosecurity measures. Division 3 sets out what those measures are, and they include vaccination, restricting the individual’s behaviour and ordering the individual to remain isolated. An individual may consent to a biosecurity measure included in a human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to the individual. An individual who refuses to consent to such a measure (other than an isolation measure or traveller movement measure) is not required to comply unless a direction has been given by the Director of Human Biosecurity requiring the individual to do so. An individual must comply with an isolation measure or a traveller movement measure for the first 72 hours while a direction from the Director of Human Biosecurity is being sought. After that time, the individual is required to comply with the measure only if a direction is given by the Director. Biosecurity measures that are included in a human biosecurity control order are treated in one of 2 ways. For some biosecurity measures, an individual who is given a direction from the Director of Human Biosecurity to comply with the measure must do so immediately. For other biosecurity measures, an individual is given a period to apply for judicial review before being required to comply with the measure.”

     Here is more from the Act about the legal requirements of complying with biosecurity orders:

“74 When individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure
Biosecurity measures where compliance is not required before review period has ended
             (1)  Subsection (2) sets out when an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure included, under one of the following sections, in a human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to the individual:
                     (a)  section 85 (managing contacts);
                     (b)  section 89 (decontamination);
                     (c)  section 90 (examination);
                     (d)  section 91 (body samples);
                     (e)  section 92 (vaccination or treatment).
             (2)  The individual is required to comply with the measure only if:
                     (a)  the individual consents to the measure; or
                     (b)  the Director of Human Biosecurity has given a direction for the individual to comply with the measure in accordance with paragraph 72(5)(a), and either:
                              (i)  the period of 7 business days referred to in section 80 has ended, and the individual has not made an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977; or
                             (ii)  the individual has made an application in accordance with section 80 for an order of review of the decision to give the direction, the application has been finally determined, and as a result of the order made in relation to the application the individual is required to comply with the measure.
Note 1:       A person who fails to comply with a biosecurity measure that the person is required to comply with may commit an offence (see section 107).
Note 2:       For expenses incurred in complying with a human biosecurity control order, see section 108.
Note 3:       Generally, force must not be used to require compliance with a biosecurity measure (see section 95).
Biosecurity measures where compliance is required without review
             (3)  Subsection (4) sets out when an individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure included, under one of the following sections, in a human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to the individual:
                     (a)  section 86 (contacting officer with health status);
                     (b)  section 87 (restricting behaviour);
                     (c)  section 88 (risk minimisation interventions);
                     (d)  section 93 (medication);
                     (e)  section 96 (traveller movement measure);
                      (f)  section 97 (isolation measure).
             (4)  The individual is required to comply with the measure only if:
                     (a)  the individual consents to the measure; or
                     (b)  both of the following apply:
                              (i)  the Director of Human Biosecurity has given a direction for the individual to comply with the measure in accordance with paragraph 72(5)(a);
                             (ii)  the direction is still in force (see section 73); or
                     (c)  if the measure is an isolation measure or a traveller movement measure—the individual refuses to consent to the measure, and the period of 72 hours from the time when the individual refused to consent to the measure has not yet ended.
Note 1:       A person who fails to comply with a biosecurity measure that the person is required to comply with may commit an offence (see section 107).
Note 2:       An individual who has applied for merits or judicial review of a decision to give a direction requiring the individual to comply with a biosecurity measure referred to in subsection (3) must comply with the direction while the review is occurring.
Note 3:       A person who does not comply with an isolation measure that the person is required to comply with may be detained under Subdivision B of Division 4.”

     Thus, while it may look like the government can just round people up, there are checks and balances in placed, and it is not conceivable that 40 percent, or any large percentage of the population could be put into disease concentration camps anyway. Really, they do not want to eliminate everybody, having put a big effort into immigration since 1947. It is important that readers start to put away emergency supplies as even countries as cucked as Sweden now advises:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCAJofc4ajM