The way out of lockdowns etc in Australia

[JohnM]

They did two tests. One inconclusive. One positive. Given the positive test result why was it implausible?

Mainly because it was an obscure outlier in the middle of nowhere.

But also, with one test negative and one test positive, the situation was confused. So it needed to be clarified with certainty before even mentioning it in public, let alone catastrophising about it.

 

[RooFlyer]

Guardian Australia's opinion poll about Corona Virus here; government responses etc :

The Essential Report Archive

The Essential Report is a poll that tracks social and political issues. The regular questions include political preferences and leadership approval.

essentialvision.com.au

Most surprising for me was the number responding "to soon ..."

 

[VPS]

Care for a Henley Beach coffee catch up Friday? Or, maybe even Thursday when I catch up with my brother at the market! That'd flip his lid or I guess we could not tell him?

Sounds good - I'll be in touch. I am supposed to work Thursday but WTF - it would be good to surprise him

Post automatically merged: Jun 2, 2020

I’ll supply the frog cakes !
I’d jump on the first plane to tassie for a cordial.

Excuse me - aren't you currently swanning around the SE and I bet there are a few winery visits as well.

 

[OZDUCK]

If the WA Premier wants to contest direct flights between Adelaide and Hobart, or Perth and Hobart, per the quote, he should have a go.

I think he would probably be happy with them but the advice given to him is that restricting the flights to just those states would fall foul of the constitution and would be a losing case before the High Court.

 

[RooFlyer]

I think he would probably be happy with them but the advice given to him is that restricting the flights to just those states would fall foul of the constitution and would be a losing case before the High Court.

But if an airline makes a commercial decision to fly Tas to SA & VV but not Tas to WA, and there are no travel impediments, what business is it of WA or the constitution?

 

[OZDUCK]

But if an airline makes a commercial decision to fly Tas to SA & VV but not Tas to WA, and there are no travel impediments, what business is it of WA or the constitution?

That is of absolutely no concern to WA or the constitution but if the same airline then wants to fly from Hobart to Sydney and is refused permission by the state government that, to me, would seem to be a probable constitutional problem.

 

[drron]

I think he would probably be happy with them but the advice given to him is that restricting the flights to just those states would fall foul of the constitution and would be a losing case before the High Court.

But that view seems to imply if restricting an airline would fall foul of the constitution then restricting people would almost certainly fall foul of the constitution.
Anyway hopefully we will soon see as I believe 2 challenges have now been filed with the High Court.It would seem likely that will mean their health advice will be made public and that could prove embarrassing.
IMHO the States will crumble before the challenges get to court.

 

[oz_mark]

We've just had a long w/e in WA and the regions were opened in time for it.

I happened to wander into Anaconda yesterday. A lot of tents seem to be sold out. The new toilet paper?

I can foresee a lot of whinging about overcrowding of camp sites and local tourist attractions coming up - especially in the July and September school holidays. Wait for the fights...

I had a bit of a drive around over the long weekend. So much was still shut. I don't think there is much point opening up to tourists until they can do stuff!

I'm hoping the upcoming round of relaxing rules will go ok, and they can start thinking about opening the borders in the July timeframe. I'm quietly confident

WA's director of Communicable Disease Control says that we just have to learn to live with Covid-19. We talked about flattening the curve, but we actually 'obliterated' it, expert says

 

[oz_mark]

But that view seems to imply if restricting an airline would fall foul of the constitution then restricting people would almost certainly fall foul of the constitution.
Anyway hopefully we will soon see as I believe 2 challenges have now been filed with the High Court.It would seem likely that will mean their health advice will be made public and that could prove embarrassing.
IMHO the States will crumble before the challenges get to court.

The states have a bit of time on their sides. I know the premiers keep saying months, but I don't believe them.

 

[OZDUCK]

But that view seems to imply if restricting an airline would fall foul of the constitution then restricting people would almost certainly fall foul of the constitution.
Anyway hopefully we will soon see as I believe 2 challenges have now been filed with the High Court.It would seem likely that will mean their health advice will be made public and that could prove embarrassing.
IMHO the States will crumble before the challenges get to court.

The argument that has repeatedly been made in W.A is that a Public Health border restriction would only fall foul of the constitution if it tried to play favourites with different states. I am certainly not a constitutional lawyer so I will not make a comment either way.

The public health advice has been made completely public in W.A already. It contained exactly what the Premier said it did.

I doubt very much that the W.A government would change its mind because of the pending High Court case. W.A governments of all political leanings have always been bloody minded about referrals to the High Court and are very happy to run an 'us against them ' argument. Think of Sir Charles Court as a prime example.

 

[drron]

The public health officers though in a High Court case need to do more than state their opinion.They will have to give evidence as to why they think their statement is true.That is when it may get embarrassing.

 

[OZDUCK]

The public health officers though in a High Court case need to do more than state their opinion.They will have to give evidence as to why they think their statement is true.That is when it may get embarrassing.

It would be interesting to see the full "Brief of Evidence", or the appropriate term, for the High Court case that I assume will need to be prepared if it does go ahead.

 

[JohnM]

The law is usually incompatible with science...

 

[oz_mark]

The public health officers though in a High Court case need to do more than state their opinion.They will have to give evidence as to why they think their statement is true.That is when it may get embarrassing.

Obviously, they are going to have to defend their position - and it is a position that I think is going to get increasingly difficult to defend - especially if the number of cases in other states falls away.

 

[jakeseven7]

Obviously, they are going to have to defend their position - and it is a position that I think is going to get increasingly difficult to defend - especially if the number of cases in other states falls away.

But even if the bubble along, which they will because we are relaxing restrictions - they will still struggle to defend because arguably the threat to life simply isn’t anywhere near high enough.

 

[RooFlyer]

Well, the Mercury, the local Hobart paper known as 'The Mockery', is getting right behind the travel bubble idea

 

[jakeseven7]

None of these routes will get up and if they do will be one or two a week and will do sweet nothing to support our decimated tourism industry.

The historical routes need to be reopened.

Not these stupid D grade routes that no one flew before anyway.

PS Mercury/No News Corp - last 747 in Hobart couldn’t carry any passengers either, idiots.

 

[oz_mark]

But even if the bubble along, which they will because we are relaxing restrictions - they will still struggle to defend because arguably the threat to life simply isn’t anywhere near high enough.

Like medical folk, judges themselves have a range of opinions. If the case is heard by multiple judges, they don't always agree with themselves.

So on one side, you would have 'yes, it's constitutional' and at the other end you have 'no it's not' I think different judges would make the call on when it changes at different places. So, if it has multiple judges, at some point the the majority opinion would change.

My personal believe is right now, if deciding today, on todays position, is that it could go either way. A month ago, it would probably be upheld. In a months time, if it's bubbling along like now, I would probably lean toward not being upheld.

 

[JohnM]

They did two tests. One inconclusive. One positive. Given the positive test result why was it implausible?

I do agree though on the shooting from the lip and this case is a good example though of why the daily press conferences need to stop as they just create unnecessary angst.


Having said that with all positive tests contact tracing and testing of close contacts immediately begins, and so it is impossible to hide it. With all positive tests you would expect this type of speedy action as it is speed that can greatly reduce the size of any new hotspot.

So while yes this case has been most unfortunate, it is going to happen from time to time. The continued daily media show does not need to continue though.

 

[lovetravellingoz]

Obviously, they are going to have to defend their position - and it is a position that I think is going to get increasingly difficult to defend - especially if the number of cases in other states falls away.

Only 1 case nationally today. That is ignoring the 7 others who are international travellers in quarantine.