Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[roogirl]

Things seem to be moving backwards...living in Melbourne, my glass is pretty much less than half empty today...

‘Barbaric’: Returning citizens who live abroad will need permission to leave Australia

The move serves as a deterrent for Australians who live abroad but may need to return home for distress travel as it could prohibit them from being able to return to their life overseas.

www.theage.com.au

Just pathetic. How will it even work? “What is your compelling reason to leave?”/ “Errr, I don’t live here”/ “do you promise not to come back for 3 months” / “Yes I never want to come back ever again because I live somewhere else”.

On what basis will they deny these exemptions? It’s just more performative theatre from a lazy government that doesn’t have any ideas other than demonising expats.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Just pathetic. How will it even work? “What is your compelling reason to leave?”/ “Errr, I don’t live here”/ “do you promise not to come back for 3 months” / “Yes I never want to come back ever again because I live somewhere else”.

On what basis will they deny these exemptions? It’s just more performative theatre from a lazy government that doesn’t have any ideas other than demonising expats.

I think it's a fair measure.

Aussies can currently leave for two reasons (a) permanent departure (not to return) and (b) compassionate grounds for serious illness.

The same should apply in reverse - Aussies should only be coming back for two reasons - (a) permanent return or (b) compassionate grounds for serious illness.

Doesn't that make it fair and equitable for all Aussies?

 

[JB expat]

I think it's a fair measure.

Aussies can currently leave for two reasons (a) permanent departure (not to return) and (b) compassionate grounds for serious illness.

The same should apply in reverse - Aussies should only be coming back for two reasons - (a) permanent return or (b) compassionate grounds for serious illness.

Doesn't that make it fair and equitable for all Aussies?

Being "fair" doesn't always make sense. If there is no harm, why make life more difficult for some solely for the sake of perceived "fairness". "Fair" is what my under 10 boys fight about all the time, and we have to explain that sometimes things need to be dealt with differently for them because it isn't solely about what is "fair" but about what is best for a certain situation given all the factors to consider.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Being "fair" doesn't always make sense. If there is no harm, why make life more difficult for some solely for the sake of perceived "fairness". "Fair" is what my under 10 boys fight about all the time, and we have to explain that sometimes things need to be dealt with differently for them because it isn't solely about what is "fair" but about what is best for a certain situation given all the factors to consider.

I think one of the reasons was that those returning for a holiday might now be deterred, freeing up space for those returning permanently. I guess it would extend too to allowing those wanting to leave on compassionate grounds to be able to return with a fraction more certainty?

 

[dajop]

I think one of the reasons was that those returning for a holiday might now be deterred,

Practically no one is coming back for a holiday right now. There are much cheaper and easier ways to go on holiday than travel to Australia.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Practically no one is coming back for a holiday right now. There are much cheaper and easier ways to go on holiday than travel to Australia.

I accept the definition of 'holiday' and 'essential' will be different according to who you ask. But if I can't leave Australia for a particular reason, I'd consider the same reason - in reverse - to be met with the same treatment. (For example if I can't leave to catch up with family overseas, the same should apply in reverse.)

 

[mviy]

The feds need to come through with sufficient mrna supply and then people actually have to go and get vaccinated.

Or people including some on AFF need to stop being anti-vax and go and get AZ, a proven safe and effective vaccine which is in plentiful supply.

If enough people come to their senses and take AZ we could reach the 80% target easily this year and hopefully start to ease international travel restrictions.

 

[jb747]

I expect that soon enough we'll hear about that 80% morphing into 99%. Minorities rule.

 

[mviy]

I expect that soon enough we'll hear about that 80% morphing into 99%. Minorities rule.

Well the one thing that could stop that is if the polls suggest a backlash at the ballot box. There are elections.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Or people including some on AFF need to stop being anti-vax and go and get AZ, a proven safe and effective vaccine which is in plentiful supply.

If enough people come to their senses and take AZ we could reach the 80% target easily this year and hopefully start to ease international travel restrictions.

Like it or not informed consent is a barrier. For some it will be large for others it will be minor.

 

[Lynda2475]

Or people including some on AFF need to stop being anti-vax and go and get AZ, a proven safe and effective vaccine which is in plentiful supply.

Having concerns about AZ doesnt make one an anti-vaxxer. I followed the recommendation, registerd for Pizer the day it opened to my cohort and am fully vaccinated all without risk of TTS.

Without Pfizer and Moderna in the mix you arent going to get to 70% let alone 80%, to think otherwise is naive.

I expect that soon enough we'll hear about that 80% morphing into 99%. Minorities rule.

Yes they keep moving the goal posts, some state leaders relishing the power to keep people from living far too much.

Well the one thing that could stop that is if the polls suggest a backlash at the ballot box. There are elections.

The power is with the states unfortunately. Scomos plan isnt enforceable, its a loose agreement at best. Also WA, Qld, NT and Tas wont be going to an election for years. Vic doesnt go to polls until very late 2022, NSW until 2023 only SA has an election early next year.

 

[jrfsp]

Like it or not informed consent is a barrier. For some it will be large for others it will be minor.

I also cannot understand why the government has not provided vaccine indemnity for the citizens getting the jab, same as in the UK.

We only indemnify the providers, ie GPs.

 

[oznflfan]

Well the one thing that could stop that is if the polls suggest a backlash at the ballot box. There are elections.

Government only cares about re-election, if the masses want open borders before election, they will get open borders before the election, % be damned.

Also if we are in same situation mid next year, and USA/Europe/Asia all open for tourism and parties all over the world, Australian population won't stand for that. We won't want to be the naughty kid in the corner.

 

[roogirl]

I think it's a fair measure.

Aussies can currently leave for two reasons (a) permanent departure (not to return) and (b) compassionate grounds for serious illness.

The same should apply in reverse - Aussies should only be coming back for two reasons - (a) permanent return or (b) compassionate grounds for serious illness.

Doesn't that make it fair and equitable for all Aussies?

But this is an outbound exemption. The incoming Aussie has already returned at the time they apply to leave.

In what circumstances would someone saying “I want to leave because I live in another country and need to go back to my work/life/partner/kids” NOT be approved as a compelling reason? It’s bizarre, it makes no sense at all.

Post automatically merged: Aug 6, 2021

I

Government only cares about re-election, if the masses want open borders before election, they will get open borders before the election, % be damned.

Also if we are in same situation mid next year, and USA/Europe/Asia all open for tourism and parties all over the world, Australian population won't stand for that. We won't want to be the naughty kid in the corner.

I think the international situation is more likely to be “open for tourism & parties but people die and every so often there’s a super spreader outbreak”. I can imagine Australians sitting back smugly and saying well we want to be SAAAAAAAFE

 

[Must...Fly!]

all without risk of TTS.

It is an interesting strategy to pick one side effect of one medication, ignoring other side effects of the competing medication.

 

[louie-m]

But this is an outbound exemption. The incoming Aussie has already returned at the time they apply to leave.

In what circumstances would someone saying “I want to leave because I live in another country and need to go back to my work/life/partner/kids” NOT be approved as a compelling reason? It’s bizarre, it makes no sense at all.

I think the idea is it will put people off coming back to Australia if they don't have the certainty that they can leave again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But this is an outbound exemption. The incoming Aussie has already returned at the time they apply to leave.

In what circumstances would someone saying “I want to leave because I live in another country and need to go back to my work/life/partner/kids” NOT be approved as a compelling reason? It’s bizarre, it makes no sense at all.

Good point as to how it would work. Maybe they will change the rule so that you now need an inbound exemption?

If they leave the rules the same... aussies resident here have to apply for an exemption to leave to be with partner, family and/or work - and those aren't automatic. So I guess they'd apply the same rules to visitors?

 

[mviy]

The issue with making Australians overseas apply for an exemption just to come home is that would effectively be a ban on travel to Australia and would be more likely to not withstand a legal challenge.

 

[Lynda2475]

I also cannot understand why the government has not provided vaccine indemnity for the citizens getting the jab, same as in the UK.

Assume you mean financial compnesation is paid to your dependent family in the UK if the vaccine kills you?

5 of the AZ deaths in Australia were in people in the age group where Pfizer is the recommended vaccine, who would otherwise likely still be alive had they waited for Pfizer/Moderna. Can any level of compensation make up for a completely avoidable loss of life?

It is an interesting strategy to pick one side effect of one medication, ignoring other side effects of the competing medication.

My choice was informed by many things:

1. Pfizer the preferred and recommended vaccine for my age group, not only in Australia but also in Europe where AZ is only for over 65s.

2. Pfizer offered the shortest duration to full vaccination (3 weeks vs 12 weeks)

3. AZ induced TTS disproportinately affects women, and the generally less serious potential heart issues that can arise from Pfizer (which have not killed any Australians) is mostly a risk for young men. Being a woman Pfizer presented less of a risk to me.

4. Pfizer has the benefit of being recognised in places i plan to frequently travel to when borders reopen. The USA does not recognise AZ and people arriving vaccinated with AZ are needing to get vaccinated again with Pfizer/Moderna/J&J to get vaccine privilege in USA. The EU also doenst currently recognise AZ manufactured outside the EU or UK.

If other people eligible for Pfizer want to go the AZ route they can consent to do so, they are entitled to assess their own personal risk appetite. Im delighted with the choice I made, and apart from extremem lethagy for 24 hours have had no ill effects.

Pfizer has been key to getting much of the front line health workers vaccinated to date, and the mrna vacines will continue to be a key part of the program going forward. I stand by my statement that you wont get to 70 or 80% with AZ alone.

MRNA vaccines are needed for the 12-17s, pregnant women those trying to coneceive, the AZ hesitant etc. Even the UK did not rely solely on AZ.

 

[mviy]

5 of the AZ deaths in Australia were in people in the age group where Pfizer is the recommended vaccine, who would otherwise likely still be alive had they waited for Pfizer/Moderna. Can any level of compensation make up for a completely avoidable loss of life?

Many more people have died from the virus in NSW than those who have had AZ.

The risk vs benefit for AZ clearly indicates that AZ should be taken. Even if Pfizer is preferred, if it's not available to an individual they should take AZ unless their GP advises they have health issues that are clearly linked to the potential for rare blood clots from the AZ vaccine.

It's becoming clearer that Australia won't get back to COVID-zero so the risk has changed.

Many of those who died from the virus would have still been alive had they been fully vaccinated including some young people. One could say the same thing about compensation and those people. Their loss of life was avoidable. If an anti-vax stance hadn't been taken AZ would have been given freely around the country to young adults by now in order to complete the rollout in October.

You may say that the young people that died from the virus didn't have a chance to get AZ in time, but what about the people they live with, their elderly family, work colleagues etc.? They may not have been exposed to the virus if more people who have been eligible for a long time had had AZ rather than being scared off it by the anti-vax brigade.

Pfizer is not a perfect drug. People have died after taking Pfizer, especially younger males.

Pfizer has been key to getting much of the front line health workers vaccinated to date, and the mrna vacines will continue to be a key part of the program going forward. I stand by my statement that you wont get to 70 or 80% with AZ alone.

Of course you won't get to 70% or 80% with AZ alone, but we'll get there a lot quicker if many more people take AZ now. There is sufficient supply of AZ in the country and we can delay donating doses to overseas if demand is needed here.

We need to open up and those refusing to take a proven safe and effective vaccine in AZ when that's all that is available to them are holding the rest of us back.