Thread: Corona Virus

Originally Posted by Tombie

Until there is a vaccine

what if this never happens?

herd immunity cant happen with a lockdown

Was reading Dr Karl today, who said Australia's infection rate is 0.025% of population, which would have to rise to over 70% before herd immunity became possible, so that won't happen.

Ah well, the decline of the human race had to have it's genesis sometime!

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Was reading Dr Karl today, who said Australia's infection rate is 0.025% of population, which would have to rise to over 70% before herd immunity became possible, so that won't happen.

hence the problem with a lockdown

shortsighted.

Originally Posted by Eevo

hence the problem with a lockdown

shortsighted.

But, as Sweden discovered, that means exposing lots of people who may be vulnerable to it - kind of full-population Russian roulette.

And, as I've noted before, the other issue about exposing everyone is that no-one knows if there will be long-term effects - what if 70% of your country end up with heart problems, given that we know that the virus attacks heart muscle?

State border closures are only OK for control of disease:


NoCookies | The Australian

For some reason I can access this on one browser but not the other .... in any case:

"Businesses suffering economic hardship because of the coronavirus pandemic and state border closures could have a case to put to the High Court, with leading constitutional lawyers saying it’s possible the ongoing restrictions on interstate travel are illegal.

Attorney-General Christian Porter said on Tuesday night that the states needed to carefully consider the economic effects and constitutional limitations of their ongoing border restrictions.

........
Under section 92 of the Constitution, trade, commerce and the movement of people among the states “shall be absolutely free”. However, the High Court accepts there are exceptions to the rule, including to defend the public’s health.University of Sydney constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said it was a lot harder now than it was at the start of the pandemic to argue that the border closures were reasonable and imposed for a legitimate end, such as protecting the community from COVID-19, when the number of active cases in Australia was so low.
Professor Twomey said it was “a possibility” that the border closures* were unconstitutional.
“If a court is looking at what is reasonably necessary in the circum*stances, there’d be consensus the states shutting borders at the start was reasonably necessary,” she told The Australian.
“But it’s much more difficult now the huge numbers of coronavirus cases have reduced significantly and there’s little commun*ity transmission … to argue you still need those borders shut.
“You can make a case for it, particularly if you’re trying to exterminate the virus rather than just manage it, but is it purely for a health purpose and is that health purpose reasonably necessary in the circumstances? It would then be up to a court to decide.”
University of NSW constitu*tional lawyer George Williams agreed that the height of the pandemic there was a clear necessity to close state borders but said that reasoning “will run thin”.
“If we get to a point where borders are closed but the justification is no longer as strong, then good questions do need to be asked about when these measures would become unconstitutional,” Professor Williams said.
“Only the High Court can answer that, which would take a challenge, but it’s not beyond question someone might want to bring a challenge. Particularly if a state looks like it’s hanging on a border closure well beyond what might seem reasonable.”

You'll note that section 92 of the Constitution refers to free movement of people, as well as goods.

When are Vic and NSW going to accept that the other States are Not ready Or willing to allow interstate tourism at this moment.
Seeing as quite a few people in NSW struggles to enforce social distancing within their own State why would the other states want to have these people doing the same thing in their States.

Originally Posted by 4bee

My Granddaughter was able to get in to do Law & Arts after getting excellent results in Entrance but she has to pay back the HECS costs when she gets a full time job (which she now has)

This year she is on about 95 grand, one year out of Uni.

Congratulations to her, she must've done very well at Uni - it's difficult for young lawyers to find roles these days.

In case you were wondering why so many young lawyers (used to) take off to London, have a look at these salaries in London:

https://www.thelawyer.com/trainee-newly-qualified-salaries-uk-law-firms


Of course, the quid pro quo for those salaries is is that you work 90 hours a week for 50 weeks a year.