General Discussion/Q&A on Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[N860CR]

That wasn’t argued in this case.

Just can’t give it up can you.

These measures that were implemented well after people were fully vaccinated are probably the greatest government overreach in this country’s history and it’s great to see that these absolutely abhorrent and unreasonable penalty notices (that far exceed that of genuinely serious offenses) are being thrown out.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Just can’t give it up can you.

These measures that were implemented well after people were fully vaccinated are probably the greatest government overreach in this country’s history and it’s great to see that these absolutely abhorrent and unreasonable penalty notices (that far exceed that of genuinely serious offenses) are being thrown out.

The two issues aren’t linked, in any way.

 

[kangarooflyer88]

These measures that were implemented well after people were fully vaccinated are probably the greatest government overreach in this country’s history and it’s great to see that these absolutely abhorrent and unreasonable penalty notices (that far exceed that of genuinely serious offenses) are being thrown out.

I don't think that is fair to say. I received my second dose of AstraZeneca on June 26th and I was in Phase 1b (high risk) and qualified for the vaccine way back in March 2021. The general population back then either wasn't eligible or there was a vaccine shortage where it was impossible to find the vaccine. Here's what vaccinations looked like in NSW back in August of 2021:


Remember, the commonwealth placed a huge bet on AstraZeneca only for CHO's of the states who frankly know very little about vaccines to talk cough about them. The only reason I think I managed to avoid COVID was by simply ignoring what the CHOs were saying and doing the EXACT opposite of what they said: getting AstraZeneca when they said it was unsafe, getting my booster back in October 2021 when they didn't recommend it. Getting a different booster in April this year when they didn't recommend mixing and matching vaccines, getting my Novavax booster in September by playing the, "I'm scared of mRNA vaccines" despite me already receiving a Pfizer and Moderna. Right now I'm masking indoors despite our clueless Health Minister saying it's unnecessary.

-RooFlyer88

 

[drron]

Though a very interesting report published a while ago comparing 2 doses of mRNA vaccines plus a known Omicron infection versus 3 or 4 doses of vaccine and no infection. Even against B5 variant the antibody response was higher with the 2 dose plus infection than either 3 or 4 doses.

“The result suggests that, compared with the two extra doses of vaccine in the 4-dose-vaccine sera, the BA.1 infection in the 2-dose-vaccine-plus-BA.1-infection sera is more efficient in boosting both the magnitude and breadth of neutralisation against all Omicron sublineages; however, the neutralisation against BA.5 was still the lowest among all tested sublineages,” the researchers noted.

https://dgalerts.docguide.com/ncov-home/article/study-examines-neutralisation-of-sars-cov-2-omicron-sublineages-by-distinct-covid-19-vaccination-and-or-ba-1-infection

 

[kangarooflyer88]

Though a very interesting report published a while ago comparing 2 doses of mRNA vaccines plus a known Omicron infection versus 3 or 4 doses of vaccine and no infection. Even against B5 variant the antibody response was higher with the 2 dose plus infection than either 3 or 4 doses.

“The result suggests that, compared with the two extra doses of vaccine in the 4-dose-vaccine sera, the BA.1 infection in the 2-dose-vaccine-plus-BA.1-infection sera is more efficient in boosting both the magnitude and breadth of neutralisation against all Omicron sublineages; however, the neutralisation against BA.5 was still the lowest among all tested sublineages,” the researchers noted.

https://dgalerts.docguide.com/ncov-home/article/study-examines-neutralisation-of-sars-cov-2-omicron-sublineages-by-distinct-covid-19-vaccination-and-or-ba-1-infection

I mean getting infected with COVID is kind of dumb. Like what's the point in the vaccines if you're gonna catch it anyway? What we are seeing is that not all vaccines are made equal and those who put all their eggs in one basket (i.e. Pfizer) may not have made the best decision in hindsight. I draw your attention to a recent study that investigated the efficacy of Novavax amongst those who received mRNA vaccines beforehand and found that protection against symptomatic infection of Omicron was long lasting.

-RooFlyer88

 

[JohnK]

Though a very interesting report published a while ago comparing 2 doses of mRNA vaccines plus a known Omicron infection versus 3 or 4 doses of vaccine and no infection. Even against B5 variant the antibody response was higher with the 2 dose plus infection than either 3 or 4 doses.

Are you or the study suggesting people are better off getting infected?

A significantly higher number of people are having issues after recovering (using this word very loosely) from covid infection than having issues after being vaccinated.

We should be teaching people how to stay safe not pretend the past 3 years were a dream.

 

[N860CR]

The two issues aren’t linked, in any way.

Yep, totally linked. Just doesn’t suit your bizarre agenda.

Post automatically merged: Nov 30, 2022

I don't think that is fair to say. I received my second dose of AstraZeneca on June 26th and I was in Phase 1b (high risk) and qualified for the vaccine way back in March 2021. The general population back then either wasn't eligible or there was a vaccine shortage where it was impossible to find the vaccine. Here's what vaccinations looked like in NSW back in August of 2021:
View attachment 309016

Remember, the commonwealth placed a huge bet on AstraZeneca only for CHO's of the states who frankly know very little about vaccines to talk cough about them. The only reason I think I managed to avoid COVID was by simply ignoring what the CHOs were saying and doing the EXACT opposite of what they said: getting AstraZeneca when they said it was unsafe, getting my booster back in October 2021 when they didn't recommend it. Getting a different booster in April this year when they didn't recommend mixing and matching vaccines, getting my Novavax booster in September by playing the, "I'm scared of mRNA vaccines" despite me already receiving a Pfizer and Moderna. Right now I'm masking indoors despite our clueless Health Minister saying it's unnecessary.

-RooFlyer88

We knew at this point that the virus only impacted people over approx 50 years old, and they were fully vaccinated. So why was somebody sitting on a bench in Sydney park fined for taking a break from their walk? Absolutely abhorrent.

 

[N860CR]

Are you or the study suggesting people are better off getting infected?

A significantly higher number of people are having issues after recovering (using this word very loosely) from covid infection than having issues after being vaccinated.

We should be teaching people how to stay safe not pretend the past 3 years were a dream.

And how do we “teach them”?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yep, totally linked. Just doesn’t suit your bizarre agenda.

the underlying covid law - the reason the fines were issued - was not questioned. The offences remain valid.

The infringements were deemed invalid because they didn’t contain the required information governing the issuing of the infringements.

This was not a ruling on the validity of the parliament’s covid laws. But a technical issue.

The case doesn’t set a precedent proving the parliament acted wrongly or illegally when it designed and implemented covid restrictions.

 

[PLANT]

Is anyone else noticing that more people around them are getting COVID for the second time.
1. They are younger and partially vaccinated.
2. They are younger and totally vaccinated.
3. Younger not wearing masks in indoor areas and socializing like pre COVID with family and public.

I'm also being told second infection symptoms feel worse than first infection.
Rats confirming infection.... but the trend is that Rat is not picking it up and a PCR is required to detect.
PCR testing centers are closing early on Sundays

 

[N860CR]

the underlying covid law - the reason the fines were issued - was not questioned. The offences remain valid.

The infringements were deemed invalid because they didn’t contain the required information governing the issuing of the infringements.

This was not a ruling on the validity of the parliament’s covid laws. But a technical issue.

The case doesn’t set a precedent proving the parliament acted wrongly or illegally when it designed and implemented covid restrictions.

And again, you think every other infringement won’t have the same technical problems. The laws were rushed through without proper consultation and looking back it’s very obvious that they were an obscene overreach. I doubt any state wants them tested in court.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And again, you think every other infringement won’t have the same technical problems. The laws were rushed through without proper consultation and looking back it’s very obvious that they were an obscene overreach. I doubt any state wants them tested in court.

It has nothing to do with the law regarding covid, lockdowns or mandates. Those laws were not challenged. Even if they were rushed as you claim, that had no impact on this decision.

The infringements were withdrawn on a technicality… the actual infringement notice didn’t contain the required level of information. Had the required information been provided on the infringement, the infringements would not have been withdrawn.

The offences have still been committed in these cases, just the enforcement cannot proceed because of the way in which the infringement notice was prepared.

You can guarantee legal groups will be looking at other states to ensure they have complied with any infringement notice requirements. But that doesn’t question the underlying covid law.

In Victoria there is a separate piece of legislation that details how infringements should be prepared, and the information that is required in them. If you were to challenge an unfringement under that legislation and be successful, it has no ramifications for the main legislation which prescribed the offence in the first place.

For that you’d need to challenge the validity of the covid law, and the parliament’s ability to lawfully pass that law. At Cth level that would be dictated by the Cinstitution. But at state level that becomes more difficult as they don’t have the same restrictions (unless encroaching on laws reserved for the Cth).

 

[drron]

It has nothing to do with the law regarding covid, lockdowns or mandates. Those laws were not challenged. Even if they were rushed as you claim, that had no impact on this decision.

The infringements were withdrawn on a technicality… the actual infringement notice didn’t contain the required level of information. Had the required information been provided on the infringement, the infringements would not have been withdrawn.

The offences have still been committed in these cases, just the enforcement cannot proceed because of the way in which the infringement notice was prepared.

You can guarantee legal groups will be looking at other states to ensure they have complied with any infringement notice requirements. But that doesn’t question the underlying covid law.

In Victoria there is a separate piece of legislation that details how infringements should be prepared, and the information that is required in them. If you were to challenge an unfringement under that legislation and be successful, it has no ramifications for the main legislation which prescribed the offence in the first place.

For that you’d need to challenge the validity of the covid law, and the parliament’s ability to lawfully pass that law. At Cth level that would be dictated by the Cinstitution. But at state level that becomes more difficult as they don’t have the same restrictions (unless encroaching on laws reserved for the Cth).

none of which changes the fact that the laws were not based on scientific facts. that is a view held by the vast majority of epidemiologists around the world.
So the laws themselves may not have been illegal but were stupid and wrong.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

none of which changes the fact that the laws were not based on scientific facts. that is a view held by the vast majority of epidemiologists around the world.
So the laws themselves may not have been illegal but were stupid and wrong.

Not relevant though… there seems to be some confusion that this decision has thrown out covid laws.

 

[N860CR]

It has nothing to do with the law regarding covid, lockdowns or mandates. Those laws were not challenged. Even if they were rushed as you claim, that had no impact on this decision.

The infringements were withdrawn on a technicality… the actual infringement notice didn’t contain the required level of information. Had the required information been provided on the infringement, the infringements would not have been withdrawn.

The offences have still been committed in these cases, just the enforcement cannot proceed because of the way in which the infringement notice was prepared.

You can guarantee legal groups will be looking at other states to ensure they have complied with any infringement notice requirements. But that doesn’t question the underlying covid law.

In Victoria there is a separate piece of legislation that details how infringements should be prepared, and the information that is required in them. If you were to challenge an unfringement under that legislation and be successful, it has no ramifications for the main legislation which prescribed the offence in the first place.

For that you’d need to challenge the validity of the covid law, and the parliament’s ability to lawfully pass that law. At Cth level that would be dictated by the Cinstitution. But at state level that becomes more difficult as they don’t have the same restrictions (unless encroaching on laws reserved for the Cth).

For the third time, you don’t think the remainder of the infringement notices issued will have the same technical faults?

 

[kangarooflyer88]

none of which changes the fact that the laws were not based on scientific facts. that is a view held by the vast majority of epidemiologists around the world.
So the laws themselves may not have been illegal but were stupid and wrong.

Do courts have the power to throw out stupid laws, particularly if they are deemed to be unconstitutional? I think if these laws were directly challenged and found to be illegal, the Commonwealth and states would likely think again the next time a pandemic occurs.

So far the courts have said that the process police used to charge many with breaches of the rules to be invalid, thereby nullifying the tickets written. It is similar to a police officer pulling you over for speeding but failing to record key details about the offence such as where the alleged speeding took place, your license plate number, vehicle description, etc.

Not relevant though… there seems to be some confusion that this decision has thrown out covid laws.

Well if a police officer doesn't effective write out the fines resulting in the fines being thrown out by a court, are the laws actually being enforced?

For the third time, you don’t think the remainder of the infringement notices issued will have the same technical faults?

There may be some that have these faults. I believe in NSW it was around 30,000 the state deemed to have such faults. However, that doesn't eliminate all of the fines written out under this law. Unless and until someone is willing to fight the basis for these laws in the first place, there will always be some fines where the punter has to pay!

-RooFlyer88

 

[drron]

Not relevant though… there seems to be some confusion that this decision has thrown out covid laws.

But because the laws are now known to be non scientific in Fact do you think any politician is going to enforce the punishments or indeed activate them in the future?
Of course they won't.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But because the laws are now known to be non scientific in Fact do you think any politician is going to enforce the punishments or indeed activate them in the future?
Of course they won't.

That is a different matter.

Some people are confusing the outcome - the revocation of a fine on a technicality - as fitting the narrative that the laws were invalid in the first place.

Not all laws are based on science. ‘No eating’ on a train or other public transport is not scientifically based, yet it is still enforceable as a law.

For the third time, you don’t think the remainder of the infringement notices issued will have the same technical faults?

Even if they do, it doesn’t mean the covid laws were invalid or wrong. That is not the issue under discussion.

Those opposed to covid restrictions should not use this decision as vindication of their position, because no such inference can be drawn.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The moderation team have decided that this thread is being closed.
Any relevant, on topic, new travel related discussion can be posted in the relevant thread.

Thank you