Thread: Covid Mk ll

It's much more likely that the citizens of said states would get sick of being isolated before a case challenging the closure made it to court.

It is much more likely that citizens of said States are more than willing to keep out visitors from the infected States because they have a pretty much normal life without lockdowns because they have managed to keep themselves virus free because of their border controls.
Even NSW is now talking about 80% and 90% double lots of vaccinations before opening up properly So why is it so unacceptable for the other States to hold back until they reach the same level of vaccination (or better)before opening up???

Originally Posted by trout1105

The States have had the right since day dot of Federation to close their borders for health reasons , The Federal Court doesn't have the power to remove those rights.
End of story.

Can you point me to the section of the Constitution or otherwise where this power of the States derives from? I suspect it must be some State/Commonwealth Agreement that is not part of the Constitution.

Edit - just read Tote's posts - and sort of agree but I was suggesting that the Federal Court would not consider whether borders should be open or shut or whether the free trade aspects of the Constitution should be considered but simply if most of the country had lifted their Health Orders, then any States that still had had them in place were being unreasonable in this position and this aspect could be considered by the Courts.

Garry

Originally Posted by trout1105

It is much more likely that citizens of said States are more than willing to keep out visitors from the infected States because they have a pretty much normal life without lockdowns because they have managed to keep themselves virus free because of their border controls.
Even NSW is now talking about 80% and 90% double lots of vaccinations before opening up properly So why is it so unacceptable for the other States to hold back until they reach the same level of vaccination (or better)before opening up???

No they are not Trout, there was always a slight relaxation at 70%, a greater one at 80% where most things are open with restrictions and they have now announced that on December first most restrictions will have gone. - maybe do a bit of research..... Roadmap to recovery reveals path forward for all NSW

It's not unacceptable for other states to stay locked up, its probably just unsustainable. For every citizen in those states who doesn't care if the borders ever open there is one who has family interstarte that they cannot see, business to be done overseas that has been waiting for 18 months or just the desire to go on a holiday outside the state. That is what will drive reopening, but if the premiers of the closed states can sustain that approach, good luck to them.

Regards,
Tote

Originally Posted by Tote

The closest thing that I can find to the national cabinet meetings is the media release from the PM, the last of which confirms the Doherty institute modelling still stands and that 80% is the time when, regardless of case numbers restrictions can be loosened. Victoria, NSW and the ACT seem to be following this advice with their roadmaps loosening a small amount at 70% and more greatly at 80%
National Cabinet Statement | Prime Minister of Australia

There is also an attachment that relates to the confidentiality of the meetings so I very much doubt that the detail will be released in a timely manner.

Regards,
Tote

70 / 80% of eligible or total? That is the obfuscation.

DL

Originally Posted by 350RRC

70 / 80% of eligible or total? That is the obfuscation.

DL

Following the link to the Doherty modelling it appears to be based on population over 16, no obfuscation that I can see....
https://www.doherty.edu.au/uploads/c...EMBER_2021.pdf

Regards,
Tote

Originally Posted by Tote

Following the link to the Doherty modelling it appears to be based on population over 16, no obfuscation that I can see....
https://www.doherty.edu.au/uploads/c...EMBER_2021.pdf

Regards,
Tote

So that's eligible. Single vax or both?

DL

Originally Posted by 350RRC

So that's eligible. Single vax or both?

DL

From the Doherty Document....

Infectious disease models were used to consider the likely relative impacts of COVID-19 epidemics introduced after achieving two-dose vaccine coverage at thresholds of 50, 60, 70 and 80% of the age-eligible (16+) population.

So double dose.

Regards,
Tote

Just a curiosity.... how are they doing this ? - for a population over 240 million.

Yes, even making allowance for rubbery figures and poor communication, the trend is interesting, especially when compared with the small State of Kerala.
And the situation in Tamil Nadu from a change in government...

Active Covid cases down to 176 in Uttar Pradesh | Lucknow News - Times of India

Kerala Covid Cases: Kerala clocks 11,699 fresh Covid-19 cases, 58 deaths | Thiruvananthapuram News - Times of India



1 Lakh = 100, 000