Australian state border restrictions

[Doctore1003]

Except that since that judgement the medical facts have changed.There are now vaccines and more established treatment so how do you suppose the case will go now.
On top of that the Commonweath had an order under the Biosecurity Act closing our borders.Some time in November that will be removed.The WA case would then be totally undermined.

Here's how I think this case would now go: the court would see that WA has a risk-based approach to its border, based on medical advice, and has only closed it to states with community spread of Covid. The court would deem this reasonable until the WA population is sufficiently vaccinated to control the spread in WA and not overload the health system.

WA has said that it will set a date for reopening the border once 80-90% of people are vaxxed (we already have 80% with a first dose or appointment booked), which given what we know about this virus and the vaccines, would still result in a substantial number of infections and hospitalisations, including among some of the most vulnerable populations like people with disability.

The purpose for setting a date a couple of months in the future is to give people a final opportunity to get vaccinated and get that rate above 90% to limit the damage.

It seems fanciful that the Court would invalidate this approach. Is there really going to be compelling advice that this is unnecessary or wouldn't work? And all this, just to bring the border down a couple of months ahead of schedule? Not going to happen.

 

[antycbr]

Here's how I think this case would now go: the court would see that WA has a risk-based approach to its border, based on medical advice, and has only closed it to states with community spread of Covid. The court would deem this reasonable until the WA population is sufficiently vaccinated to control the spread in WA and not overload the health system.

WA has said that it will set a date for reopening the border once 80-90% of people are vaxxed, which given what we know about this virus and the vaccines, would still result in a substantial number of infections and hospitalisations, including among some of the most vulnerable populations like people with disability.

The purpose for setting a date a couple of months in the future is to give people a final opportunity to get vaccinated and get that rate above 90% to limit the damage.

It seems fanciful that the Court would invalidate this approach. Is there really going to be compelling advice that this is unnecessary or wouldn't work? And all this, just to bring the border down a couple of months ahead of schedule? Not going to happen.

They may hold off a judgement under s.92 for a short period to allow WA to complete their vaccination program. Two months at most is my estimate based on dosing and efficacy. If WA doesn't achieve the target then the border will open.

The last place the WA government want to end up in is in the Federal Court explaining how their health system has not been prepared, after 18 months of warning, and indeed is badly affected by the very border closures preventing the efficient and effective recruitment of staff. The suspension of elective surgery is an indicator of just how bad the situation is.

Your argument about "risk based approach" doesn't consider proportionality of the imposition on others of the suspension of s.92 rights, which Keifel clearly flagged. Vaccines are the alternative health based response, they need to get vaccinating ASAP including vulnerable people.

Conversely, the restrictions on travel are easy for someone like Flight Centre to quantify in court - and the impacts on QF and VA may see them join the action.

 

[oz_mark]

Here's how I think this case would now go: the court would see that WA has a risk-based approach to its border, based on medical advice, and has only closed it to states with community spread of Covid. The court would deem this reasonable until the WA population is sufficiently vaccinated to control the spread in WA and not overload the health system.

Imagine if the WA government had known for 18 months there was a contagious virus around. They may have been able to take steps to prepare.

At the very least, one would hope a court case looking at the facts could consider.this. imagine who they would blame.

 

[Princess Fiona]

WA first dose rate 65.4%
NSW fully vaccinated 65.2%

Isn’t any way that border is coming down anytime soon.

 

[antycbr]

WA first dose rate 65.4%
NSW fully vaccinated 65.2%

Isn’t any way that border is coming down anytime soon.

I misread that as being close then realised what you’re saying.

 

[oz_mark]

WA first dose rate 65.4%
NSW fully vaccinated 65.2%

Isn’t any way that border is coming down anytime soon.

Indeed. As with Qld, WA is objectively underperforming in the vaccination rollout.

 

[jakeseven7]

Indeed. As with Qld, WA is objectively underperforming in the vaccination rollout.

Understatement of the year

 

[Princess Fiona]

Indeed. As with Qld, WA is objectively underperforming in the vaccination rollout.

Add in the NT to that.
Both of them are on 66.4% first dose.

 

[JohnM]

Indeed. As with Qld, WA is objectively underperforming in the vaccination rollout.

The complacency/apathy in the WA bubble seems to be the major factor in that. Life is just too much like the pre-Covid normal.

 

[jase05]

The complacency/apathy in the WA bubble seems to be the major factor in that. Life is just too much like the pre-Covid normal.

A touch like that in SA, plenty are doing the right thing but still far too many pockets bringing us down. I believe a couple of LGA’s in particular struggling with rates and Grant had something like under 10% double dosed and under 40% single dosed last time I checked

 

[VPS]

A touch like that in SA, plenty are doing the right thing but still far too many pockets bringing us down. I believe a couple of LGA’s in particular struggling with rates and Grant had something like under 10% double dosed and under 40% single dosed last time I checked

What area are you calling Grant?

 

[jase05]

What area are you calling Grant?

Pt McDonnell and surrounds. It excludes Mt Gambier but covers some of the Limestone Coast

 

[jakeseven7]

Pt McDonnell and surrounds. It excludes Mt Gambier but covers some of the Limestone Coast

Wow, covid is going to have fun there in the not too distant future…

 

[VPS]

Pt McDonnell and surrounds. It excludes Mt Gambier but covers some of the Limestone Coast

mmm I assumed that and I am not surprised - I have family members that area covers. I've given up trying to convince them to get vaccinated

 

[jase05]

mmm I assumed that and I am not surprised - I have family members that area covers. I've given up trying to convince them to get vaccinated

Only about 8k in the area but last count which was last week had them at 10.6% double dosed, worst LGA in nation

 

[nutwood]

Only about 8k in the area but last count which was last week had them at 10.6% double dosed, worst LGA in nation

That's the thing with statistics though. If you wanted a headline you could say it's an area with only 7000 people yet to be vaccinated.

 

[Pushka]

Pt McDonnell and surrounds. It excludes Mt Gambier but covers some of the Limestone Coast

I understand there weren’t many vax clinics in the SE.

 

[exceladdict]

The complacency/apathy in the WA bubble seems to be the major factor in that. Life is just too much like the pre-Covid normal.

I do think/hope that when an opening date is announced, it will push people over the line. I think it's apathy and a lack of urgency that's holding back the few, now that there is a "choice" of vaccine for most.

I do wonder if King Mark needs to come out and threaten lockdowns and masks, if we don't get to X% by the time the border opens. The court cases may force that hand.

Of course there's some who no matter what you say, won't be pushed. We had an interesting discussion at a family event yesterday as to whether people refusing the vaccine should be refused treatment if they end up hospitalised (if/when hospitals get overwhelmed). The health report discussed the lack of prioritisation processes earlier in the week, if that interests you. But back to the topic I wonder if that might push some to get vaccinated.

 

[nutwood]

I do think/hope that when an opening date is announced, it will push people over the line. I think it's apathy and a lack of urgency that's holding back the few, now that there is a "choice" of vaccine for most.

I do wonder if King Mark needs to come out and threaten lockdowns and masks, if we don't get to X% by the time the border opens. The court cases may force that hand.

Of course there's some who no matter what you say, won't be pushed. We had an interesting discussion at a family event yesterday as to whether people refusing the vaccine should be refused treatment if they end up hospitalised (if/when hospitals get overwhelmed). The health report discussed the lack of prioritisation processes earlier in the week, if that interests you. But back to the topic I wonder if that might push some to get vaccinated.

I think what will push most people to get vaccinated is when those around them start getting sick. At the moment, anti-vaxxing is an easy indulgence. This will change when it starts to become a very real risk of being seriously unwell or a theoretical risk of being injected with a 5G chip and taken over by pedophile lizards.
Off topic question; can a lizard be a pedophile if it's molesting human children, surely it's just a lizard behaving badly?

 

[jase05]

At the press conference to announce the new case in Tasmania, Mr Gutwein still proclaimed that their aim is 90% of eligible 16+ needed to be vaccinated and 12-15 age group to have 1 shot by December 1st to open border but hopes it will be before Christmas.