Ignoring The Hazard

If you can't identify the hazard, just ignore it, and act as if the symptoms are instead.

Implementing COVID-19 Response Policies is like bandaging employees with mask fabric and injecting them with tiny glass shards before they get cut.

Our people have struggled for three to six years, with many sources to blame. Some might point toward the woman who proclaimed that marketers of policy were the single source of truth. However, the engine for these issues is far more complicated than the word spells of a sloganeer. It doesn’t matter what side of the unlicensed medicine debate you fall on; we’ve all been dis-affected by the trials and tribulations of the proclaimed pandemic.

Massive debt is taken on and wasted on a response that never proved it addressed the hazard. Instead, this Act resulted in record inflation and a populace that ignored the financial mismanagement of one of our most critical strategic assets. You can’t have things if you don’t make them, and it’s never too late to reinstate structures that make things you need.

A response to an identified hazard is needed; those bound to health and safety don’t have a choice. The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 is the tie that binds consenting persons to health and safety. If you are bound to this, then considering the ASNZ Safety Standards, you need to promote health and safety in your management space. If you are a corporation or incorporation registered to the Crown’s jurisdiction, you were told you must implement COVID-19 Response Policies to ensure you are meeting your obligations to Health and Safety.

Except COVID-19 is not the hazard, SARS-CoV-2 is, and the risk that may eventuate from that hazard is Coronavirus disease, not COVID-19. So what is COVID-19? Based on the control measure’s focus, the only thing that it can be is the symptoms of Coronavirus disease.

If you implement COVID-19 Response Policies to meet your health and safety obligations, you breach your obligations to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Confused? That’s normal; private conversations have informed us that the government tied up Health and Safety litigants in government contracts. Unfortunately, these contracts prevent them from speaking out against the government, suing it for its most undeniable offence, purposefully ignoring the claimed hazard, and failing to minimise or eliminate the spread of an improperly identified risk. Sadly, lawyers who honour the unwritten law of the dishonourable courts never bring it to the court's attention. Why? Rule one of the courts is, don’t embarrass the court; rule two is, don’t get caught lying in the court. Why are these two rules inverted? Arrogance, childish arrogance. Who foolishly tried to embarrass the court by telling the truth? Me.

If the purpose of this Act were to fail to address symptoms, the whole thing would be a waste of time. If someone is experiencing symptoms in the workplace, it’s too late to implement the hierarchy of controls.

It doesn’t matter what your argument is; COVID-19 is not and never will be a hazard or a risk worth addressing. Just because you can identify it does not make it a suitable substitute for a SARS-CoV-2 response policy. We all agree on this: if there is a thing that is supposedly causing harm, injury, or loss, and you’ve proclaimed that there’s a pandemic of it, then the hazard is SARS-CoV-2. We didn’t make the rules; the Crown did, and so far, addressing the correct hazards and risks has worked for every other threat in the workplace. That’s why we have the hierarchy of controls and safety standards, and guess what? They work.

One of the control measures they imposed was consent-based mask mandates (offers). However, they didn’t correctly inform people that the mandates required consent and didn’t tell people that they never intended to address the hazard with the response. The safety standard data shows they also failed to manage the hypothetical symptom risks correctly.

What isn't clear is how the COVID-19 Response Policies and control measures have worked to minimise the spread of the hazard and risks. If you base your legal system on proof’s weight, where’s the evidence for the reduction or elimination of SARS-CoV-2? There is none because the government can’t provide proof of substance so they can identify SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace. That’s why they engaged in a campaign to identify cold and flu symptoms while claiming that PCR and RAT tests are diagnostic tools for identifying COVID-19 when they’re not. Depending on your cycle threshold, it is a potential identifier of every microorganism. What was our cycle threshold? About thirty cycles. Was that too high? Uh yeah…

It’s straightforward; if you cannot identify the hazard in the workplace, then you cannot draft a response to it that meets your obligations to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Therefore, if you force someone to comply with a policy that does not meet your obligations to a hazard you have not identified correctly, you have breached your obligations to the very Act you were attempting to uphold with the ineffective policy. Furthermore, you have committed a crime by trying to force your stupidity onto someone else. We’ve used this argument on PCBUs who have mandated their employees out of work through tacit consent; their response? Silence and attempts to make it disappear with stall tactics and miserable compensation offers. A Fonterra milk processing plant failed to mandate their employees because their engineers knew the safety standards and identified the fraud the government was trying to roll out through consenting businesses. Other Fonterra and FENZ companies were more insistent on fraud and still are.

FENZ claimed that COVID-19 is a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, but how can that be when all the COVID-19 responses aim to protect people from Coronavirus disease symptoms?

Why is it fraud? Because when we asked PCBUs what COVID-19 is, they claimed it was Coronavirus disease, the alleged risk associated with SARS-CoV-2. What’s the problem with this claim? When answering the follow-up question, how does a particulate mask and endless unlicensed medical interventions “aimed at addressing the symptoms” protect one from the disease? We are either met with silence or a derivative of one of the below proclamations:

1. The particulate mask protects others from particulates (water vapour) that may or may not contain SARs-CoV-2. The problem is, it doesn’t do that either.

2. Vaccination reduces symptoms…

Thus, they admit that both responses aim to form a hypothetical barrier around a symptomatic person or from a symptomatic person through a relative risk reduction that is less than its relative risk of harm. They have just admitted that the responses don’t protect you from Coronavirus disease, and we are back to the original question and a new one:

What is COVID-19, and why is the vaccine not called a SARs-CoV-2 vaccine? Those are the most critical unanswered questions: why? The truthful answer would make the government a criminal, and its courts would have declared it. Rule one of the courts: don’t embarrass the owner of the courts by prompting a confession in court to be of more significant effect than any proof. One that goes toward implicating the Crown in a serious crime: fraud with intent to harm and injure for financial gain. If you had proof of that, murder is more straightforward to prove down the track.

A safety standard expert writes this article. The government and all the businesses implementing COVID-19 Response Policies didn’t want to pay these guys for a response addressing the hazard. Maybe it’s because they would have been forced to identify the hazard.