All borders to reopen.
The single biggest problem with delegating authority for border closures to CHO's et al, is this. They are Doctors by profession! The very nature of a Doctors psyche is to prevent, or limit the spread of disease, no matter the cost. They are not economists, virologists or (shudder) politicians. They have no concept of the ramifications beyond their health-perspective bubble. Tell a Doctor they can "do whatever they need to to stop COVID in the State of <X>" and of course they are going to say "stop everyone coming in". Tell a Doctor "Do whatever you want to stop COVID, but obey the Constitution" and you would have a very different result.
Edit: basically you're saying she isn't qualified to lead the response, can you tell us what you know of her quals to make that claim?
Can you tell me where the constitution has been ignored? Also wondering what you have to say about the av lfe expectancy thing.
Last edited by exfocx; 13th Sep 2020 at 09:11.
So you're saying a Dr would have no idea of the economic consequences and If so I guess you'd say the same about an economist understanding the health consequences. Btw, what's to say a virologist isn't a Dr!
Edit: basically you're saying she isn't qualified to lead the response, can you tell us what you know of her quals to make that claim?
Can you tell me where the constitution has been ignored? Also wondering what you have to say about the av lfe expectancy thing.
Edit: basically you're saying she isn't qualified to lead the response, can you tell us what you know of her quals to make that claim?
Can you tell me where the constitution has been ignored? Also wondering what you have to say about the av lfe expectancy thing.
As for the Constitution, you can try by looking at s.117 "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State." Now, the "standard test" as proposed by Justice Stephen in Henry v Boehm (slightly paraphrased)is to take two citizens, identical in every way, bar their state of residence, and ask the question "Can they do the same thing, and are they subject to the same penalties?".
You tell me that a citizen in Logan, Qld, where AIUI there has been confirmed transmission can travel to the Brisbane CBD, yet a citizen of Lismore, NSW cannot even enter Queensland, and the sole basis on which she has been rejected entry is she is from New South Wales, does not violate s.117. As was found in the Palmer v WA (No 4) trial, there are "reasonable alternative measures" that would not increase the risk to the WA population, yet they have not been introduced. Residents of NSW & Vic are still locked out of WA based on nothing more than their state of residence, no matter the amount - or lack thereof - of COVID cases in their locality.
And when you consider how many international arrivals Qld is taking per capita, they are managing less than 1/3rd of that entering NSW (91/Million, vs NSW at 301/Million) yet Anna-Stayaway has the gall to list their entire state as a 'hotspot' because her state isn't pulling its' weight? Puh-lease.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for my Indian mate who cant come in to see his dying brother, I would like to set a GoFundMe to allow him in. How much do we need to raise to get him an exemption?
I'm saying that the priority of the CHO is to control the spread, and so long as they think they have the authority to shut out well over 60% of the Australian population as a means to an end then they will do that.
As for the Constitution, you can try by looking at s.117 "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State." Now, the "standard test" as proposed by Justice Stephen in Henry v Boehm (slightly paraphrased)is to take two citizens, identical in every way, bar their state of residence, and ask the question "Can they do the same thing, and are they subject to the same penalties?".
You tell me that a citizen in Logan, Qld, where AIUI there has been confirmed transmission can travel to the Brisbane CBD, yet a citizen of Lismore, NSW cannot even enter Queensland, and the sole basis on which she has been rejected entry is she is from New South Wales, does not violate s.117. As was found in the Palmer v WA (No 4) trial, there are "reasonable alternative measures" that would not increase the risk to the WA population, yet they have not been introduced. Residents of NSW & Vic are still locked out of WA based on nothing more than their state of residence, no matter the amount - or lack thereof - of COVID cases in their locality.
And when you consider how many international arrivals Qld is taking per capita, they are managing less than 1/3rd of that entering NSW (91/Million, vs NSW at 301/Million) yet Anna-Stayaway has the gall to list their entire state as a 'hotspot' because her state isn't pulling its' weight? Puh-lease.
As for the Constitution, you can try by looking at s.117 "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State." Now, the "standard test" as proposed by Justice Stephen in Henry v Boehm (slightly paraphrased)is to take two citizens, identical in every way, bar their state of residence, and ask the question "Can they do the same thing, and are they subject to the same penalties?".
You tell me that a citizen in Logan, Qld, where AIUI there has been confirmed transmission can travel to the Brisbane CBD, yet a citizen of Lismore, NSW cannot even enter Queensland, and the sole basis on which she has been rejected entry is she is from New South Wales, does not violate s.117. As was found in the Palmer v WA (No 4) trial, there are "reasonable alternative measures" that would not increase the risk to the WA population, yet they have not been introduced. Residents of NSW & Vic are still locked out of WA based on nothing more than their state of residence, no matter the amount - or lack thereof - of COVID cases in their locality.
And when you consider how many international arrivals Qld is taking per capita, they are managing less than 1/3rd of that entering NSW (91/Million, vs NSW at 301/Million) yet Anna-Stayaway has the gall to list their entire state as a 'hotspot' because her state isn't pulling its' weight? Puh-lease.
A result the third party interest (NSW/ACT) in border crossings got a penalty.
Funny part is they both learnt that the border restriction for Victoria was justified and both introduced them soon after - but both have proven they run the Jack system.
I'm saying that the priority of the CHO is to control the spread, and so long as they think they have the authority to shut out well over 60% of the Australian population as a means to an end then they will do that.
As for the Constitution, you can try by looking at s.117 "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State." Now, the "standard test" as proposed by Justice Stephen in Henry v Boehm (slightly paraphrased)is to take two citizens, identical in every way, bar their state of residence, and ask the question "Can they do the same thing, and are they subject to the same penalties?".
You tell me that a citizen in Logan, Qld, where AIUI there has been confirmed transmission can travel to the Brisbane CBD, yet a citizen of Lismore, NSW cannot even enter Queensland, and the sole basis on which she has been rejected entry is she is from New South Wales, does not violate s.117. As was found in the Palmer v WA (No 4) trial, there are "reasonable alternative measures" that would not increase the risk to the WA population, yet they have not been introduced. Residents of NSW & Vic are still locked out of WA based on nothing more than their state of residence, no matter the amount - or lack thereof - of COVID cases in their locality.
And when you consider how many international arrivals Qld is taking per capita, they are managing less than 1/3rd of that entering NSW (91/Million, vs NSW at 301/Million) yet Anna-Stayaway has the gall to list their entire state as a 'hotspot' because her state isn't pulling its' weight? Puh-lease.
As for the Constitution, you can try by looking at s.117 "A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State." Now, the "standard test" as proposed by Justice Stephen in Henry v Boehm (slightly paraphrased)is to take two citizens, identical in every way, bar their state of residence, and ask the question "Can they do the same thing, and are they subject to the same penalties?".
You tell me that a citizen in Logan, Qld, where AIUI there has been confirmed transmission can travel to the Brisbane CBD, yet a citizen of Lismore, NSW cannot even enter Queensland, and the sole basis on which she has been rejected entry is she is from New South Wales, does not violate s.117. As was found in the Palmer v WA (No 4) trial, there are "reasonable alternative measures" that would not increase the risk to the WA population, yet they have not been introduced. Residents of NSW & Vic are still locked out of WA based on nothing more than their state of residence, no matter the amount - or lack thereof - of COVID cases in their locality.
And when you consider how many international arrivals Qld is taking per capita, they are managing less than 1/3rd of that entering NSW (91/Million, vs NSW at 301/Million) yet Anna-Stayaway has the gall to list their entire state as a 'hotspot' because her state isn't pulling its' weight? Puh-lease.
You again make the mistake of thinking you're more than just a pilot. Btw, what is your response in relation to your "knowledge" of Av life expectancy?
[QUOTE=KRviator;10884168]I'm saying that the priority of the CHO is to control the spread, and so long as they think they have the authority to shut out well over 60% of the Australian population as a means to an end then they will do that...........[/Q
You're suffering from overreach. What is her order of priority and how would you know what she thinks? Do you think that whatever advice she gives the QLD Premier that there would also be legal advice given by the QLD Attorney General & the QLD Crown Solicitors Office??
Btw, you have seen the comments on the data that the greater the death rate the greater the degree of economic damage?
Edit: Apologies, I don't know what financial impact cv is having on you and thus your views.
You're suffering from overreach. What is her order of priority and how would you know what she thinks? Do you think that whatever advice she gives the QLD Premier that there would also be legal advice given by the QLD Attorney General & the QLD Crown Solicitors Office??
Btw, you have seen the comments on the data that the greater the death rate the greater the degree of economic damage?
Edit: Apologies, I don't know what financial impact cv is having on you and thus your views.
Is Victoria a real epidemic, or just a casedemic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...vFhIFzaac#menu
40 minutes but worth a look.
Argues that 20% of population are susceptible to COVID, and 80% have a degree of immunity from previous CV with enough cross-reactivity.
Also that the epidemiology curves are pretty much baked in regardless of measures like lockdowns or masks.
and that you need to look at death data. Case data is confusing because how many cases (or how many positive PCR tests you get) depends on how much testing you do.
The world has probably over-reacted to this. And this over-reaction may have been the entire point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...vFhIFzaac#menu
40 minutes but worth a look.
Argues that 20% of population are susceptible to COVID, and 80% have a degree of immunity from previous CV with enough cross-reactivity.
Also that the epidemiology curves are pretty much baked in regardless of measures like lockdowns or masks.
and that you need to look at death data. Case data is confusing because how many cases (or how many positive PCR tests you get) depends on how much testing you do.
The world has probably over-reacted to this. And this over-reaction may have been the entire point.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Most locked down city in the world
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey slats at 12:54 he said we are doing things in history that we haven't tried before.
i.e. locking down healthy people I would assume. We haven't locked away healthy people at all not in any civilisation
or generation. Until now.
Just shows how governments hit the panic button, except Sweden of course.
Should be shown to Sutton/Andrews and they will immediately dismiss all the data,
even though they think its correct.
We will just supercomputer it, she'll be right mate.
i.e. locking down healthy people I would assume. We haven't locked away healthy people at all not in any civilisation
or generation. Until now.
Just shows how governments hit the panic button, except Sweden of course.
Should be shown to Sutton/Andrews and they will immediately dismiss all the data,
even though they think its correct.
We will just supercomputer it, she'll be right mate.
Last edited by Turnleft080; 13th Sep 2020 at 14:01.
We haven’t ever used an incredibly sensitive test (able to find virus in sewage) to define people with no symptoms as diseased, and using the numbers of such diseased people to make decisions on locking down a city of 5M.
No, I don’t think we have tried that before.
But let’s see how it turns out.
No, I don’t think we have tried that before.
But let’s see how it turns out.
Dan seems to be in his own world.
The Victorian CHO has admitted he didn’t recommend the Victorian curfew.
The Commonwealth CHO has described Victoria’s path as very conservative.
While COVID is an issue, we need to be careful not to just examine one side of the ledger. There are enormous long term health and economic costs to these lockdowns. The problem is that it will be too late by the time the final cost is known.
The Victorian CHO has admitted he didn’t recommend the Victorian curfew.
The Commonwealth CHO has described Victoria’s path as very conservative.
While COVID is an issue, we need to be careful not to just examine one side of the ledger. There are enormous long term health and economic costs to these lockdowns. The problem is that it will be too late by the time the final cost is known.
Dan seems to me to be a closet sadist and a megalomaniac. He seems to me to be getting pleasure out of the infliction of pain. That is the only construction I can put on the emotionless kabuki. we get every morning along with the constant micro management of everything.
What is particularly repellant is his deliberate and nasty use of the epidemic to advance his personal prejudices:
Hunting, firearm and ammunition sales were banned.
Golf banned, but Bicycling and walking allowed.
No access to holiday homes. No camping, no caravanning.
Boating banned - you still aren’t even allowed to sit in your boat on a mooring or in a marina!
Flying banned in greater Melbourne.
....And of course no protests, unless it’s for BLM.
What is particularly repellant is his deliberate and nasty use of the epidemic to advance his personal prejudices:
Hunting, firearm and ammunition sales were banned.
Golf banned, but Bicycling and walking allowed.
No access to holiday homes. No camping, no caravanning.
Boating banned - you still aren’t even allowed to sit in your boat on a mooring or in a marina!
Flying banned in greater Melbourne.
....And of course no protests, unless it’s for BLM.
Throughout history, governments and leaders have used fear to influence and control people. Fear of going to hell, fear of crime, fear of immigration etc. Look at the ridiculous curfews, inconsistent rules and heavy handed police tactics, I Suggest that’s more scary than COVID.
I wonder how the 7 people that died in Victoria yesterday from/with COVID compares to the 125 Victorians that died on average each day at the same time last year, that we didn’t get a daily update for.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this made me smile (and it's aviation related!):
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...rders/12660222
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...rders/12660222
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cairns
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This says it all in relation to the Qld Borders.....
Sydney family wishing to see ill father in Queensland, finally granted permission after becoming AFL footballers.
Queensland’s Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk says she will allow a Sydney family to enter the state in order to see their critically ill father, after learning the family had become professional footballers.
The family took the unusual step of becoming professional athletes, after it became clear there was no other way to enter the state.
“We did consider becoming Tom Hanks and shooting a movie on the Gold Coast, but in the end we decided it would be easier to get on the list of an AFL club,” family member Emily Bryson said.
“In hindsight we should’ve just become an AFL administrator, rather than going through all of the training to become a player, but that’s in the past now”.
Premier Palaszczuk said she made no apologies for Queensland’s border restrictions. “I want to be very clear: we are doing this to keep all Queenslanders safe and to win an election. So unless your work is absolutely vital – like playing four quarters of footy or making a movie about Elvis Presley – you aren’t welcome”.
Sydney family wishing to see ill father in Queensland, finally granted permission after becoming AFL footballers.
Queensland’s Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk says she will allow a Sydney family to enter the state in order to see their critically ill father, after learning the family had become professional footballers.
The family took the unusual step of becoming professional athletes, after it became clear there was no other way to enter the state.
“We did consider becoming Tom Hanks and shooting a movie on the Gold Coast, but in the end we decided it would be easier to get on the list of an AFL club,” family member Emily Bryson said.
“In hindsight we should’ve just become an AFL administrator, rather than going through all of the training to become a player, but that’s in the past now”.
Premier Palaszczuk said she made no apologies for Queensland’s border restrictions. “I want to be very clear: we are doing this to keep all Queenslanders safe and to win an election. So unless your work is absolutely vital – like playing four quarters of footy or making a movie about Elvis Presley – you aren’t welcome”.
This says it all in relation to the Qld Borders.....
Sydney family wishing to see ill father in Queensland, finally granted permission after becoming AFL footballers.
Queensland’s Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk says she will allow a Sydney family to enter the state in order to see their critically ill father, after learning the family had become professional footballers.
The family took the unusual step of becoming professional athletes, after it became clear there was no other way to enter the state.
“We did consider becoming Tom Hanks and shooting a movie on the Gold Coast, but in the end we decided it would be easier to get on the list of an AFL club,” family member Emily Bryson said.
“In hindsight we should’ve just become an AFL administrator, rather than going through all of the training to become a player, but that’s in the past now”.
Premier Palaszczuk said she made no apologies for Queensland’s border restrictions. “I want to be very clear: we are doing this to keep all Queenslanders safe and to win an election. So unless your work is absolutely vital – like playing four quarters of footy or making a movie about Elvis Presley – you aren’t welcome”.
Sydney family wishing to see ill father in Queensland, finally granted permission after becoming AFL footballers.
Queensland’s Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk says she will allow a Sydney family to enter the state in order to see their critically ill father, after learning the family had become professional footballers.
The family took the unusual step of becoming professional athletes, after it became clear there was no other way to enter the state.
“We did consider becoming Tom Hanks and shooting a movie on the Gold Coast, but in the end we decided it would be easier to get on the list of an AFL club,” family member Emily Bryson said.
“In hindsight we should’ve just become an AFL administrator, rather than going through all of the training to become a player, but that’s in the past now”.
Premier Palaszczuk said she made no apologies for Queensland’s border restrictions. “I want to be very clear: we are doing this to keep all Queenslanders safe and to win an election. So unless your work is absolutely vital – like playing four quarters of footy or making a movie about Elvis Presley – you aren’t welcome”.
Their cho is another joke,if she cant cop criticism,move on.