Silver Fox will be pleased.

I’m waiting for my second shot but there are no guarantees in this life! 

Israel shows COVID-19 cases can explode once life returns to 'normal' at 80 per cent vaccination
By Amy Greenbank

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-21/israel-shows-what-life-looks-like-at-80-per-cent-vaccinated/100394760?utm_medium=social&utm_content=sf248768285&utm_campaign=fb_abc_news&utm_source=m.facebook.com&sf248768285=1&fbclid=IwAR38fe9vmoAfYtd7GiK5FV6slC2k-q_iMm9F_KRVY_BHP4i9otchvM9obao

Life is set to be very different once 80 per cent of Australians are vaccinated — but one country has shown the dangers of being too confident and throwing out the rest of the COVID toolkit.

Key points:
Israel recently had to reimpose restrictions following a huge surge in COVID-19 cases
The vast majority of new cases were unvaccinated children
Experts say the resurgence proves the vaccine cannot be relied upon alone
Australia has been promised more freedom once the 80 per cent threshold is met, and the Prime Minister has said at that point, COVID-19 can start to be treated like the flu.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has said more of society will reopen once the 80 per cent target is hit, but the extent of the freedom will depend on case numbers.

"You would still have to respect some rules that exist around vaccinations, around social distancing, around mask wearing [once 80 per cent target is met]," she said.

But Israel, which has a population only slightly larger than NSW, reopened completely after reaching the 80 per cent mark — and took one giant step backwards.

Two women holding shopping bags and with masks under their chins laugh on an Israel street.
In recent months, Israel has reopened businesses, schools and event venues, lifting nearly all restrictions.(ABC News: Phil Hemingway)
Israel shot to an early lead in the race to vaccinate, inoculating its citizens at an eye-watering pace to deliver the world's fastest vaccine rollout.

Around 78 per cent of the eligible population are now fully vaccinated, just shy of the 80 per cent target set for Australia to start to open up.

But in recent weeks Israel has been hit by a surprise resurgence of COVID-19, with seven-day average daily case numbers surging past 6,500 this week.

Epidemiologist Catherine Bennett from Deakin University has been paying close attention to Israel's experience with COVID-19 and said the new surge of infections was"disappointing", as it quashed many people's hopes of a return to normality.

A woman in spectacles in a park.
Professor Catherine Bennett, Deakin's chair of Epidemiology.(ABC News: Peter Drought)
"Everyone would have loved for the story to be a great one where you could live normally and all would be well," she said.

"They had gone to the future we hoped might be possible... but that was pre-Delta."

So what went wrong for Israel? Two months ago it appeared the country had all but conquered the virus.

Seven-day average case numbers had toppled from a peak of more than 8,500 in January to a mere handful by June after a successful vaccination campaign, and health authorities were jubilant.

The death rate had also dropped, from an average of over 65 a day in January to near zero by late June, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

However, that success would be short lived.

With virtually all restrictions relaxed in June, mass gatherings such as the country's annual LGBTQI pride parade soon saw tens of thousands of party goers flock to a Tel Aviv beach, singing, dancing and hugging.

A group of young women with fans laughing as water droplets spray through the air
People take part in an annual gay pride parade in Tel Aviv on June 25.(Reuters)
Residents celebrated no longer having to wear a mask or socially distance.Some even travelled overseas, although they were encouraged not to.

But within weeks the Delta variant had entered the country, initially emerging in schools.

"The vast majority of those infected are unvaccinated children. There are also vaccinated individuals [and] the severe cases are among older adults 60 years of age and older," a statement from Israel's Ministry of Health said.

Elderly residents who had previously received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine began reporting serious symptoms after contracting the virus, sparking concerns that vaccine effectiveness was wearing off, according to Israeli epidemiologist Nadav Davidovitch.

Professor Davidovitch, who works at Israel's Ben-Gurion University and is a member of the national expert committee on COVID-19, said Israel had false confidence.

"People were celebrating the end of COVID and this was probably too early," he said.

Israel learns hard lessons of Delta
Since the explosion of cases, Israel has had to backtrack.

Masks have been reintroduced indoors, and the "green pass" was recently re-imposed, requiring residents to prove their vaccination status before entering certain venues.

A woman on the chest fly machine in a gym looking at her reflection
'Green passes' are required upon entry to facilities like gyms.(Reuters: Ronen Zvulun)
Three weeks ago, Israel began offering third Pfizer shots to the elderly and health care workers, and 1 million booster shots have since been administered.

Israel has also tried incentives such as free beer to win over the hesitant, with more than 1 million people still holding out on receiving the vaccine.

As for calling another lockdown, Professor Davidovitch said the government would resist it for as long as possible.

"For me, lockdowns are only when you're failing."

Nadav Davidovitch is an epidemiologist and public health physician in Israel.(Supplied)
He said the main indicator would be if the hospitals were overrun, and said that, fortunately, admissions had halved following the vaccination rollout.

The death rate is also much lower, despite the surging cases.

As of August 17, the seven-day average daily death rate was 19, compared to a seven day average of 65 deaths a day at the peak of Israel's outbreak in January.

Professor Catherine Bennett said that was one small comfort, but the warning to Australia was clear.

"We know from Israel that opening up completely and [the virus] getting away from you is a problem," she said.

"Israel relied completely on the vaccine, Australia [should not] do that."

Professor Bennett said Australia was more likely to retain some public health safety measures such as testing, tracing and isolating, even after it reached its 80 per cent vaccination target.

"We can't get to 80 per cent and expect things to magically change if our case numbers are too high."

As for when complete freedom will be restored, Professor Bennett suggested it might be a slow process.

"If we suppress transmission by two thirds around the world, we might not see another variant emerge as quickly as we saw Delta, which means vaccines targeting Delta will work for longer," she said.

"This means we will progressively grind it down to a level we won't see new variants … and the ideal situation is in a year's time we can treat COVID-19 like other infections such as the measles," she said.

.

wondering when hanging might be re introduced reading this below

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/sydney-couple-fined-1-000-by-undercover-cops-for-eating-noodle-soup/ar-AANIoEZ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
A frustrated Sydney couple have each been fined $1,000 for eating noodle soup in a city market even though the pair were holding masks at the time.

James Adcock and his partner Francis were enjoying the hot broth at the open-air markets in Potts Point on Saturday when they were approached by a man in a suit.

The undercover officer from Kings Cross station asked what they were doing and the pair explained they had stopped to eat something before they started shopping.

Mr Adcock told Daily Mail Australia he and his partner had been standing well away from the crowds and had been holding masks at the time of the incident.

'We found a quiet spot away from everyone else to eat while standing. No sitting. Just us two on our own,' he explained.

'As I was finishing and putting my mask back on the police officer in casual clothes approached and asked "what do you think you are doing".

Mr Adcock said the officer had seen his grocery bags were empty and told the pair he didn't believe they were shopping, but instead were standing and eating.

The pair were each hit with a $1,000 fine for a breach of the public health orders, two of six penalties the officer and his colleagues handed out that day.

The same undercover cop was seen approaching another couple enjoying a takeaway coffee while perched on the fringes of the Fitzroy Markets.

The man and his partner were similarly questioned as to what they were doing, before the officer demanded ID and told them to expect a $1,000 fine.

It is unclear whether this couple were carrying masks at the time.

The man vowed to contest the $1,000 fine as he claims he was firmly within the definition of 'outdoor recreation', which is permitted for households outside of Sydney's 12 LGA's of concern.

 Thats typical coppers trying to prove they are doing their job. No common sense in Govt just black and white unfortunately.

Japan's chairman of their Medical Association has now recommended that Japan Doctors prescribe Ivermectin.
In a press conference, Haruo Ozaki explained that African countries who have actively used Ivermectin (for prevention of worms) have recorded 134.4 Covid19 Positive cases per 100,000 and 2.2 deaths per 100,000, while African countries without Ivermectin are 950.6/100k Covid19 cases and 29.3/100k Covid19 deaths.

Ivermectin works, so why are the same Health departments pushing vaccines, refusing to acknowledge the benefits of proven real world safe and cheap alternative therapeutics like Ivermectin and Vitamin D??? Why???
Why do they insists that young people and those already with natural immunity to still get vaccinated when the risks of the vaccines are greater than the benefits it provides (for those demographics)??? Why???
 

 Ivermectin causes nasty side effects at rates greater than cltting from vaxzevria (Astra).

Just look up these straight from MIMS PI. All indications. Very rarely, hypotension (mainly orthostatic hypotension), worsening of bronchial asthma, toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, seizures, elevation of liver enzymes and elevation of bilirubin.

I think I will stick with the vaccines.

thought provoking read this if the interpretation is correct

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/curious-case-unlawful-public-health-orders-peter-fam?fbclid=IwAR1ki0bZrW6HDgvUukwvzBknwatVLO-YrYagDOes-UJV22GlwUd9k4C9bKA

The Curious Case of the Unlawful Public Health Orders
Published on August 26, 2021

Peter Fam
Peter FamFollow
Human Rights Lawyer, Sydney
Like270
Comment121
0
DISCLAIMER: This article is my personal opinion only and does not constitute legal advice. This article is, for the most part, an article for lawyers. So, like a lot of lawyers, it's long winded and full of jargon. LinkedIn doesn't provide too many formatting options either, so it's a bit of a slog to get through. In saying all that - I think it's potentially quite important, and I'm keen to hear your thoughts or counter-arguments. Thank you for reading.

In my sixth and final year of law school, my 'Statutory Interpretation' lecturer, a prominent barrister, slammed a thick textbook on the table and turned to face the class.

"Look, I know this subject sounds dry", she said, "but in my four decades of practising law, the skills I will teach you in this class have been, hands down,

THE.

MOST.

IMPORTANT.

[she paused here, for effect]

...in allowing me to effect justice".

She was right, of course. It was dry.

But she was also right that it was important.

What I didn't know then was that it was those lessons that would lead me here. To my view that, on a proper and comprehensive statutory interpretation of health legislation in Australia, the Minister for Health (who himself has a Masters in law) is misinterpreting, or perhaps misusing, the Public Health Act 2010 NSW (the PHA) to make 'Public Health Orders' which have no force at law, because they are inconsistent with the Biosecurity Act 2015 Cth (the BSA). So, blanket 'Public Health Orders' mandating vaccination, testing, or even mask wearing are, I believe, invalid.

This article explains my reasoning.

This article will be broken into four parts:
The Biosecurity Act overrides the Public Health Act (the inconsistency argument);
Other arguments for the Public Health Orders' invalidity (and problems with their enforcement);
Why challenges in Court have failed so far (the constitutional argument); and, lastly;
In Closing.
1. The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) overrides the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW)
The issuing of PHOs in NSW
Helpfully, the NSW Government has a page where you can easily view the 'Public Health Orders' (PHOs) currently active.

These PHOs are the directives which purport to stipulate and enforce the matrix of rules that we are currently living under. Recently, on 23 August, the 'Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No 2) 2021' came into effect. I won't bore you by telling you what's inside - I'm sure you already know. For our purposes, it's most important to simply view the first page. A quote:

"I, Brad Hazzard, the Minister for Health and Medical Research, make the following Order under the Public Health Act 2010, section 7".

So, Mr Hazzard makes clear that the PHO is made under section 7 of the PHA. Here are the relevant parts of that section:

7 Power to deal with public health risks generally (cf 1991 Act, s 5)

(1) This section applies if the Minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health.

(2) In those circumstances, the Minister—

(a) may take such action, and

(b) may by order give such directions,

as the Minister considers necessary to deal with the risk and its possible consequences.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), an order may declare any part of the State to be a public health risk area and, in that event, may contain such directions as the Minister considers necessary—

(a) to reduce or remove any risk to public health in the area, and

(b) to segregate or isolate inhabitants of the area, and

(c) to prevent, or conditionally permit, access to the area.

On its face, this is an extraordinarily broad power, which seems to grant the Minister discretion to do whatever he personally "considers reasonable" to deal with risks to public health. This is certainly how Mr Hazzard is using it.

So how does the Biosecurity Act fit in?
First, the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) (the BSA) is a Commonwealth Act. Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states:

“When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid”.

So, to the extent of any inconsistency, the BSA trumps the PHA.

Importantly, the BSA itself also asserts its authority over the PHA. Section 8 of the BSA deals with "concurrent operation of State and Territory laws". It says:

(1) This Act does not exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with this Act (except as referred to in subsection (2)).

(2) Subsection (1) is subject to the following provisions:

(a) section 172 (prohibited goods);

(b) section 265 (ballast water);

(c) subsections 445(4), 446(4), 477(5) and 478(4) (biosecurity emergencies and human biosecurity emergencies).

So, there are two things to note off the bat.

First, if the (state) PHA is incapable of operating concurrently with the (federal) BSA, then the (federal) BSA excludes or limits the operation of the (state) PHA.

Second, even if the PHA is capable of operating concurrently with the BSA, Subsection 2(c) notes that, in the case of 'human biosecurity emergencies', the BSA limits the operation of the PHA anyway.

The Biosecurity (Human Biosecurity Emergency) (Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Declaration 2020, made under s475 of the BSA, and currently in force (until September 17 2021), confirms that the Covid-19 pandemic has been declared a 'Human Biosecurity Emergency".

So, whether or not s7 of the PHA (the one that seems to give the NSW Minister sweeping powers) is capable of operating concurrently with the BSA, which I'll discuss below, s7 of the PHA is limited by the BSA: it only allows the Minister to make such directions which are capable of operating concurrently with the BSA.

What does "operating concurrently" mean? Well, the term is not defined in the BSA, and as my old statutory interpretation lecturer would tell you, in that case, you go to the ordinary dictionary definition:

"to occur at the same time".

So, are they capable of doing so?

The conflicting provisions
First, it is important to note the intention of the BSA, which comes clearly from Section 4, the "Objects" of the Act. That intention is "to provide for managing...biosecurity risks...the risk of contagion of a listed human disease or any other infectious human disease and human biosecurity emergencies".

Second, lets look at how the BSA aims for such a situation to be managed.

Part 3 of the BSA deals with "managing risks to human health" through the mechanism of a "human biosecurity control order" (Control Order). This section is complex, as it must be, and very detailed. Critically, there are several checks and balances in place to mitigate the significant controls it potentiates for an individual. These checks and balances are a far cry from the sweeping, broad power the NSW Government is purporting to execute under s7 of the PHA.

Checks and Balances

Only three people can issue a Control Order under the BSA (Section 60):

a chief human biosecurity officer;
a human biosecurity officer; or
a biosecurity officer.
Lets call them, "the Authorised Issuers".

Note that this list doesn't include police officers, nor, obviously, the NSW Minister for Health.

Next, the Control Order must be in writing (Section 62).

It's also important to note that "a human biosecurity control order may be imposed on an individual only if the officer is satisfied that the individual has been exposed to a listed human disease, another individual who has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease, or the individual has failed to comply with an entry requirement...in relation to a listed human disease" (Section 60(2)).

Section 61 also stipulates that a Control Order that is in force in relation to an individual must state the ground on which it is placed on that individual as well as what signs and symptoms of the illness that person is showing.

This is an important difference between Control Orders and the current Public Health Orders. Control Orders can only be placed on individuals who are either sick, or likely to be sick. So, under the BSA, individuals are healthy until proven sick, you could say. This is a very different approach to assuming that the entire population of a state is sick, and issuing blanket rules and restrictions as a result.

So, what can a Control Order actually do?

Under a Control Order, an individual may be required to:

provide to a specified biosecurity officer or chief human biosecurity officer the prescribed contact information of an individual who they've been in close proximity to (Section 85);
contact an Authorised Issuer during a specified period to advise them of their health (Section 86);
go to, and remain at, their intended place of residence for a specified period (Section 87);
wear specified clothing and/or equipment designed to prevent a disease from emerging, establishing itself or spreading (but it must specify the circumstances in which the individual is required to wear the clothing/equipment, the period or times during which they must, and instructions for wearing it) (Section 88);
be decontaminated (Section 89);
undergo a medical examination at a specified medical facility (such as a test) (Section 90);
provide, if they've undergone a medical examination, specified bodily samples for the purpose of testing for the disease (Section 91);
receive a specified vaccination or form of treatment in order to manage the disease (Section 92); and
receive specified medication in order to manage the disease (but the order must specify how much medication is taken and how long it is to be taken for) (Section 93).
I also want to draw your attention to the two sections which immediately follow the sections about what a Control Order can do.

Section 94 says that, even if a Control Order is issued in relation to Section 90 (examination), Section 91 (body samples), Section 92 (vaccination or treatment) or Section 93 (medication), that Control Order must be carried out in a manner consistent with both "appropriate medical standards" and "appropriate other relevant professional standards". It would be fair to say, for example, that an "appropriate medical standard" is the doctrine of informed consent, so arguably, a Control Order could not be carried out on an individual who did not offer this consent.

Secondly, Section 95 says that force "must not be used against an individual to require the individual to comply" with any of the measures listed above.

So, in sum, we have a very clear description of:

Who can issue a Control Order;
How that Control Order is to be issued and justified;
What that Control Order might do;
That Control Orders are still subject to appropriate medical standards, such as informed consent, for example; and
That force must not be used against an individual to ensure compliance with a Control Order.
What does this mean for the NSW Public Health Orders?

As far as I know, nobody in NSW has been issued with a validly issued Control Order under the BSA. But, all of us have been allegedly subject to Public Health Orders made under the guise of Section 7 of the PHA. Among other things, those Public Health Orders have sought to:

Restrict our movement;
Mandate testing and vaccination for certain people; and
Require us to provide evidence to police officers of permits, testing, vaccination and our identity and address.
But, the blanket directions to do the above in NSW are not consistent with the strict requirements associated with those restrictions or mandates in the BSA. In other words, the Public Health Orders themselves (which are directives made under the guise of s7 of the PHA), and s7 of the PHA in general, is not capable of operating concurrently with Part 3 of the BSA, because they are not capable of operating at the same time.

On the most basic level, the ability for the Minister for Health in NSW to make "such directions as the Minister considers necessary to deal with [a public health] risk and its possible consequences" bypasses the various conditions and requirements the BSA imposes.

And, the proof of the inconsistency is in the pudding, so lets take an example:

On 26 August 2021, the NSW Government released the 'Public Health (COVID-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order 2021', which establishes mandatory requirements for people working in health settings to be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine.

Under the BSA, the only way that a vaccine could be mandated to an individual would be if:

an Authorised Issuer gave an individual a Control Order, in writing;
only if that person was sick, or likely to be sick, with Covid-19;
with the ground for the order stated on it; and
in compliance with appropriate medical standards.
So, a blanket requirement for a group of people to be vaccinated based either on where they live or what they do for work could not operate concurrently with s92 and 94 of the BSA (which deal with vaccination), and is either invalid in and of itself, or is confirmation that s7 of the PHA has been invalidly used (stretched beyond a limitation imposed by Section 8 of the BSA) in making that Order.

Indeed, many of the requirements imposed on individuals under the Public Health Orders can not operate concurrently with the stringent requirements of Part 3 of the BSA.

The counter argument here might be that the PHA and the BSA only need to be capable of operating concurrently. So, theoretically, the Minister could issue directions under Section 7 which do not subvert or conflict with Part 3 of the BSA, and even though he hasn't, the fact that he could means Section 8(1) of the BSA doesn't exclude or limit the operation of Section 7 of the PHA. But, this is not a good argument for two reasons:

1 - Where there is uncertainty about the effect of a Statutory provision, such as this theoretical uncertainty around Part 8 of the BSA, the intention of the Act is paramount. The intention of the BSA is clear: "to provide for managing...biosecurity risks...the risk of contagion of a listed human disease or any other infectious human disease and human biosecurity emergencies", and, as is clear from the provisions of the Act, to do so comprehensively and carefully. The intention is not to make allowance for or to facilitate state legislation standing in its place.

2 - The nature of the Public Health Orders themselves, the product of the Minister's use of Section 7, are so clearly beyond the scope of the equivalent provisions in the BSA, that Public Health Orders being issued in tandem with Control Orders would seem ridiculous. In one case, entire LGAs are being told to get vaccinated if they want to work in certain jobs or move around freely, whereas in the other, an individual, who must actually be sick, must be personally written to with grounds listed for the order, and must still ultimately provide their free consent.

Finally, and most importantly, even if Section 7 of the PHA and Part 3 of the BSA are capable of operating concurrently, Section 8, Sub-Section 2 of the BSA notes that, in the case of "Human Biosecurity Emergencies", which the Covid-19 pandemic has officially been declared, the BSA "excludes and limits the operation" of the PHA anyway. So, any direction purported to be made under the PHA, which goes beyond the scope of the BSA, is invalid.

So, on that basis, if someone has been told they must get vaccinated, or tested, or even to wear a mask, and they haven't received a personal biosecurity control order, which itself is compliant with the various checks and balances in the Biosecurity Act, telling them to do so, then that mandate is not valid.

What about the Constitution?
Just in case there's any doubt, we'll briefly look at Section 109 of the Constitution:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

What is inconsistency?

The High Court has outlined several broad approaches, or tests, to determine whether there is inconsistency. I'll focus on two:

1. If one law confers a right which the other purports to take away, they are inconsistent.

It is more than arguable, in my view, that the BSA confers several rights on the individual, by way of the various checks and balances it applies to the imposition of Control Orders for the protection of those individuals.

But, the directions under the PHA don't take these checks and balances into account, and therefore take the individuals' rights away.

2. If the federal law covers the field in question, the state law is inconsistent.

The intention of the BSA is "to provide for managing...biosecurity risks...the risk of contagion of a listed human disease or any other infectious human disease and human biosecurity emergencies". Clearly, this Act can be said to have been intended to deal with the regulations and rules which can be placed on citizens in the context of a contagious virus. The comprehensive and specific mechanisms in place with regard to testing, vaccination and mask-wearing are clearly intended to "cover the field" in terms of how individuals should be directed, or restricted, in the case of such an emergency.

The declaration of a "Human Biosecurity Emergency" is further proof of this.

So, any directions given by the NSW Minister for Health, or the Minister of any other state, which intrude on the "field" that the BSA "covers", which includes vaccination, testing, mask wearing and directions for movement, are therefore inconsistent.

The cases which have examined this Section have made clear that, where an inconsistency exists, the State law which is inconsistent with the Federal law ceases to have operative force. So, there is a very good argument to say that s7 of the Public Health Act, and any directions made under it, which intrude on the "field" which the BSA covers, do not have operative force, and are invalid.

2. Other arguments for the public health orders' invalidity
There are other arguments which point to the misuse of power, and the invalidity of the Public Health Orders, by our Government:

Australian Criminal and Family Lawyers have argued that the Health Minister does not have the power to create offences, but only orders and directions. This means that many of the current police powers which the Public Health Orders attempt to implement (such as police being able to ask for evidence of vaccination, for example), as well as the ways the Public Health Orders are actually being policed, may be unlawful. This has implications for anybody who has received a fine for breaching a Public Health Order in particular. Read more here in this very detailed article: https://www.acfl.com.au/police-lockdown-powers-unlawful/.
Advocate Me has argued that NSW hasn't actually declared a "State of Emergency" under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989, despite repeatedly referring to the pandemic as a "state of emergency" (in press conferences, for example). This is relevant to the way the PHA operates, because if they had declared a state of emergency, other parts of the PHA would govern and restrict their powers of management (some checks and balances, not too dissimilar to the BSA, would apply). Avoiding this declaration may be a cheeky attempt to bypass these checks and balances and instead rely exclusively on the very broad s7 of the PHA. You can read more here: https://www.advocateme.com.au/nsw-false-emergency
3. Why challenges in court have failed so far
Challenges in court so far have tried to focus primarily on the implied freedom of movement under the Constitution, and why the Public Health Orders breach that implied freedom.

This is what Clive Palmer tried when arguing that he should be allowed into Western Australia despite the border closure, for example, but the High Court found that the implied freedom of movement under the Constitution is only a corollary to the implied freedom of political communication, and that this was not a sufficient grounds for overturning public health orders brought in under the context of a pandemic.

I believe, instead, the argument needs to focus on the actual legislative framework the NSW Government is subject to, and the fact that the NSW Government and other states are issuing orders that go way beyond what the overall legislative framework allows.

4. In closing
When the Public Health Act was drafted, in 2010, it was an attempt to implement public health legislation that would allow the NSW Government to deal with potential future health threats, including pandemics. But, the Biosecurity Act didn't exist then, and the drafters of the NSW Act did not have a superior Federal Act to ensure compliance and consistency with. In addition, it's hard to say whether the drafters of the NSW Act envisioned that a future Health Minister would try to use s7 to make so many blanket Public Health Orders, with such incredible intrusiveness, and with such complexity, as what we now have.

I would argue that, even though it is limited by the BSA, section 7 of the PHA itself should nonetheless be subject to reform. Discretionary, blanket order making is an incredible amount of power to give to one citizen in any democracy. In contrast, the checks and balances within the BSA are intentional and sensible, especially now that we've had a chance to take a breath and realise that Covid-19 is not the killer of millions that we were originally told it would be.

It must also be asked, if I'm not wrong about all of this, has Mr Hazzard received this advice from somebody, at some point? Does he realise he is acting outside of his power, being himself trained in law? Does he realise the 'orders' he is subjecting an entire state of citizens to are unlawful? Will he take responsibility for their incredible, intergenerational impact these orders are having? Will he be forced to, in time?

And what about the citizens of NSW? Are they complying with these 'Public Health Orders' due to the illusion of legality, rather than legality itself? Can fines actually stand when there is no proper legislative basis for them? I don't know one person who doesn't feel that at least some of these rules, to at least some extent, are arbitrary and nonsensical, and that they are becoming increasingly so. What are the implications if they are also unlawful?

When the dust settles on all of this, maybe one of the lessons should be that there's a reason why laws are made by parliament, and not by politicians. No one man should have all that power.

Peter Fam is a human rights lawyer in NSW.

(PS - as a final, tangential, but potentially important point, why hasn't Mr Hazzard actually signed any of the Public Health Orders? The Public Health Orders are supposed to come into effect upon being signed, but not one of them has yet had the pleasure of Mr Hazzard's signature. I find that odd, to say the least).

Published By
Peter Fam
Peter Fam
Human Rights Lawyer, Sydney
Follow
In my sixth and final year of law school, my 'Statutory Interpretation' lecturer, a prominent barrister, slammed a thick textbook on the table and turned to face the class. "Look, I know this subject sounds dry", she said, "but in my four decades of practising law, the skills I will teach you in this class have been, hands down, THE. MOST. IMPORTANT. [she paused here, for effect] ...in allowing me to effect justice". She was right, of course. It was dry. But she was also right that it was important. What I didn't know then was that it was those lessons that would lead me here. To my view that, on a proper and comprehensive statutory interpretation of health legislation in Australia, the Minister for Health (who himself has a Masters in law) is misinterpreting, or perhaps misusing, the Public Health Act 2010 NSW to make 'Public Health Orders' which have no force at law, because they are inconsistent with the Biosecurity Act 2015 Cth. So, blanket 'Public Health Orders' mandating vaccination, testing, or even mask wearing are, I believe, invalid. This article explains why. #law #health #healthcare #publichealth #justice #humanrights #Covid19 #vaccinemandate #vaccinepassport #freedom #government #nswlockdown #nswpol #Australia #testing #coronavirus #publichealthorder

 The below from an independant GP who has an honors degree in imunology/virolgy which  I follow. So for those that believe natural immunity is the way to go.......

You might have read some headlines over the past couple of days quoting a study that concludes that natural acquired immunity from previous COVID infection gives ‘superior’ protection compared to vaccine-acquired immunity. A pre-print of a retrospective study from Israel found that people who had previously contracted COVID were 13 times less likely to get reinfected with delta strain compared to a cohort of people who had been double-vaccinated with Pfizer.

Context, as always, is everything.

First, is this finding surprising? And does it really make the argument that vaccination is inferior to natural acquired immunity?

Well, no. It’s not unheard of to see evidence of waning immunity with vaccination. We see this with whooping cough and tetanus vaccines, which require boosters. It’s been demonstrated with measles vaccine too. Research into measles cases reported in Victoria between 2014-2017 found that 13 people diagnosed and hospitalised with measles were confirmed to have ‘secondary vaccine failure’, meaning they had received at least one dose of the vaccine, with demonstrable antibodies in their blood, but their protection had waned leaving them susceptible to infection.

This is why the Government started offering free measles boosters to those who were born after 1966, and who had only likely ever received one dose of the vaccine. The reason these people were targeted for boosters is that those born prior to 1966 were more likely to have been naturally infected by measles in the community, and hence their natural immunity was more likely to endure.

So while it’s not surprising that natural acquired immunity may endure longer, anyone advocating the chasing of ‘naturally acquired immunity’ through infection is ignoring a few things.

1. They ignore the fact that COVID has killed over 4.4 million people, and that even the young are susceptible to the worst outcomes.

2. They ignore the fact that a proportion of the population will develop long haul COVID symptoms.

3. They ignore the fact that we don’t have data on possible long term sequelae of natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. We have examples of chronic viral infections causing cancer, like Hepatitis C and Human Papilloma Virus. What we know about SARS-CoV-2 is still quite limited.

4. They ignore published data published in PLOS that found that while SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses are sustained for up to seven months post-infection, longevity of the antibody response varies. Levels of virus-neutralising antibodies were found to be associated with COVID-19 severity, and antibodies generated after early infection had a significantly reduced antibody binding and neutralisation potency against globally emerging viral variants.

But, I hear some people argue, surely the vaccine comes with risks too? Why should I accept the risk of vaccine adverse events when I can just accept the risk associated with getting the virus itself and *hopefully* develop better immunity in the aftermath?

Well, the following data from Israel, which was actually published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine and is not just a pre-print, really puts the risks of COVID and the risks of vaccine adverse events into perspective.

In the first part of the study 884,828 Israeli’s vaccinated with Pfizer were matched with unvaccinated controls and monitored for a period of 42 days, to determine the risk of adverse events secondary to vaccination compared to unvaccinated controls.

In the second part of the study, 173,106 SARS-CoV-2–infected persons were matched to uninfected controls, to determine the risk of adverse events secondary to natural COVID infection compared to uninfected controls.

The risk of adverse events secondary to vaccination were then compared to the risk of adverse events secondary to natural COVID infection.

In the first part, the study found that compared to unvaccinated individuals, the vaccinated group had a higher risk of:

- myocarditis (2.7 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- lymphadenopathy/swollen lymph nodes (78.4 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- appendicitis (5.0 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- herpes zoster infection (15.8 additional events per 100,000 persons)

While the increased risks mentioned above may seem like they are unacceptably high to you, and you may think that taking your chances playing ‘Natural COVID Immunity Roulette’ is acceptable, the second part of the study puts things into context because it shows that in natural COVID infection:

- the risk of myocarditis was HIGHER (11 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of acute kidney injury was HIGHER (125.4 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of pulmonary embolism was HIGHER (61.7 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of intracranial haemorrhage was HIGHER (7.6 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of pericarditis was HIGHER (10.9 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of myocardial infarction was HIGHER (25.1 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of deep-vein thrombosis was HIGHER (43.0 additional events per 100,000 persons)

- the risk of arrhythmia was HIGHER (166.1 additional events per 100,000 persons).

A comparison of the risks is elegantly demonstrated in the first comment, with a link to the study included.

Final word?

While the idea of ‘natural acquired immunity’ may sound appealing when it’s being touted without context on the news, please realise that compared to vaccination, data shows that the COVID infection you need to acquire to achieve your natural immunity (of unknown duration) comes with an increased risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, DVT, myocardial infarction (heart attack), intracranial haemorrhage, arrhythmia, and acute kidney injury. Not to mention the risk of long COVID and the ‘only 1%’ risk of death

ill just take the jabs, already dodged too many bullets, big pharma has done me no harm, that I know of, hoping to get clearance on my feet tomorrow so I can go on the ocean and in it.

From the last England Variants of Concern Technical Briefing which reports every fortnight (NB: England at about 60% fully vaccinated for that period);
- In Fully Covid-19 Vaccinated people, there was 26,364 Breakthrough cases and 277 Deaths reported.
- For the Unvaccinated there was 32,079 positive cases and 137 Deaths.

Those unvaccinated people who survive will now have better immunity than those vaccinated who will likely need multiple doses per year in the coming years.

When you are reading your fear mongering propaganda, just try to remember that the Covid-19 statistics that you hear are being exaggerated to help the narratives.
Lately we have been hearing lots about why the children need to be vaccinated. There have been many reports and articles about how they are still at risk and how this Delta variant is worse for younger people than previous variants.

Well be aware that the 15 year old Sydney boy who died a couple of weeks ago of pneumococcal meningitis but was positive Covid-19 at the time is registered as Australia's only <20 year old Covid-19 death statistic.

The CDC in the USA have acknowledged through their own statements that about 10% of their recorded Covid-19 deaths died just from Covid-19 with no other co-morbidities.

The VAERS database that allows for the reporting of Covid-19 Vaccine adverse reactions, which I believe (without checking) is currently over 10k deaths, has had records of reported deaths deleted and some even changed from being deaths to other new records.
Some estimates of the VAERS database in the USA suggest that is only showing about 10% of actual reactions and deaths.

Our own Australian version of VAERS, administered by our TGA now has 476 deaths after vaccinations reported (which is more than Covid-19 deaths during that time period). And for some reason, their number of (new weekly) reported adverse reactions has stayed about the same each week now, even though we are now vaccinating twice as many doses as we were a few weeks back. Their statistic of adverse reactions reported per 1,000 doses is now down to 3.1 when their classifacation for an adverse reaction would suggest that should be about 500 (as supported by the information on the Pfizer vaccine information sheet and other studies).
Best case scenario is the TGA is doing a good job given their resources, but only a very small percentage of actual adverse reaction are being reported to this voluntary system.

Once again, do not believe all the propaganda you hear in the MSM news about Covid-19. Do your own research.

 Haha, last day at work and sea and I decided to count up some stats of my own.

Blue Kaiser has a total of 144 posts in his 6yrs and 4 months on Fishwrecked.

62 of those are in this thread.

It took him 54072 hrs to make 82 posts.

and 1912 hrs to make the next 62.

How many people have you convinced here you reckon?

If I had another day of my swing to go with no engine breakdowns, I'd love to count up the actual word stats and turn them into percentages 

Japan, recently found traces of metal in a batch of Moderna shots.
They subsequently put a halt on 1.63m doses related to those contaminated doses.

Since then 2 men have died shortly after getting shots from those batches that had already been administered prior to the halt.
 

Was there anything in what I posted that was not true???
What exactly did I cherry pick???
Your research produced an article that states what I stated.
 

 Just another episode of days of our lives. 

The shops have ran out of popcorn,  now starting on salt and vinigar chips. 

I think the way you present  informaiton promotes a particular type of inference, but without laying out the complete story. Everyone can take a different view, even when presented with the same evidence, based on their knowledge and experience, but you still need to see the same set of facts to form your opinion  you feel comfortable defending. Your post presents a few elements of the story and tries to infer negative aspects related to the vacinne, when the full story in that link simply says "wait and see what the investigaiton finds".  Could be nothing there in relation to the vaccine.

So sea-kem doesn't gaslight you all about me supposedly cherry picking again, you can all go to the trouble of opening and reading the article for yourselves.
Don't thank me, thank sea-kem.

https://www.grenfellrecord.com.au/story/7407178/japan-finds-more-contaminated-vaccines/

Ivermectin

More fuel..

mmm ivermectin - bit like drinking baygon to kill a mossie that bites u

have  a look what they say on side effects - and the changes of having them for  a laugh- and we bitch about astra zeneca

 I prefer to have my wife paint a stripe of Cydectin on my back. Much more cost effective.

Guys this is a interesting thread without too much flaming so keep it up. Ive had both my phizer jabs, it was a hard decision I admit.  My wife just had her first and had rashes on her arms. A guy at work lost his mum one day after her astra shot they found her dead in the shower. I felt his loss while he was crying telling me about it. It was in Perth and was not reported as a vaccine death.

I just get my hackles raised at never ending government restrictions in my life.

Carry on. Tight lines.

 Don't forget that the types of vaccine delivered and the age groups receiving them are both changing over time. Adverse reaction rates vary between  Astra and Pfizer, between first and second dose and between different age groups etc. So, in order to see if the rate of adverse events is really changing in the rpeorting, you would want to compare same vaccine, same dose and same age of recipient over time.

had my secnd pfizer last friday. had a bitch of a dead arm, and fever and chills for a few days, but nothing some rest and panadol/neurofen didnt fix. so far no extra arms, but i do feelthat my phone reception is better :) easy decision for me with a number of family members at risk and young kids to think about.

 Blue Kaiser,

Why are you trying so hard to discourage people from getting vaccinated if that is their choice ?

If you don't want it, that"s fine, don't get it.

But if people do want to be protected then they should be able to go about it freely without anti-vaxxers pissing in their ear.

 Both my wife and I have had our 2 pfizer jabs. No probs or side effects for us.

 I'll just leave this one here ......

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/westmead-hospital-patient-overdoses-on-online-cure-for-covid-19-c-3849469