The so called national cabinet has been nothing but an escape clause for the PM. He obviously knew he & the parliament were going to get the response wrong by an order of magnitude or three, & used it to try to spread the blame.

What it has done is show how little power the national government really has in such situations, & show how, although they are part of the decision making body, state premiers have no requirement to follow those decisions.

With the PM worried about the economic disaster developing, & all state premiers interested only in looking good in the eyes of their state voters, the "cabinet" is another disastrous talk fest, doing nothing useful.

About the only thing good to come out of the whole fiasco is that most people now realise how lucky they are, not to live in Victoria.

SteeleRedux, the media release I cited says: "The human biosecurity emergency declaration ensures the Government has the powers to take any necessary measures to prevent and control COVID-19 and protect the health of all Australians. These powers have been used on a limited basis on expert medical advice."

Any Australian is entitled to question the extent of those powers...

For example, up to December, the human biosecurity emergency will have been underway for nine months, how much longer can it be extended? According to the Biosecurity Act 2015 these extensions could be endless, as the Governor-General may extend a human biosecurity emergency at the behest of the Health Minister. (Chapter 8, Part 2, Division 2, 476 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00127)

It's been suggested the AstraZeneca vaccine could be ready early next year, with the UQ vaccine expected in mid-2021.[1]

If the human biosecurity emergency continues to be extended, is it possible Australians could be coerced to have these highly questionable vaccine products? It seems the potential is there... My reading of the Biosecurity Act 2015 indicates people could be at risk of five years imprisonment and/or a $66,600 fine if they refuse the vaccine.[2]

I suspect not a lot of people know that, or about the Biosecurity Act 2015. I'm interested to know who was behind this legislation, which was underway at the same time as the No Jab, No Pay bill which was enacted as law in January 2016.

References: (See post above.)
1. CSL to manufacture 81m COVID-19 vaccine doses by mid-2021. AFR, 7 September 2020.
2. See the Biosecurity Act 2015, Part 3, Division 2, Subdivision C, 74 When individual is required to comply with a biosecurity measure (1) (e) section 92 (vaccination or treatment) and (2) and Note 1: A person who fails to comply with a biosecurity measure that the person is required to comply with may commit an offence (see section 107), and Division 4, Subdivision C 107 Offence for failing to comply with a human biosecurity control order...Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both. A 'penalty unit' is $222 under Commonwealth law, multiplied by 300 equals $66,600, Notice of Indexation of the Penalty Unit Amount: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020N00061

Dear ElizabethHart,

You either think Australia has a biosecurity issue where the lives of tens of thousands of Australians are at risk or you don't. If you don't then you are among the fringe dwellers. If you do then why isn't an extension the correct thing to do leaving aside the over reach you seem to think the legislation contains?

I'd suggestive whole response was totally misdirected.

We should have focused on trusting the people to take measures to ensure their own health, and welfare.

We all have come to appreciate models are only as good as their input. On the evidence and past experience with climate modelling, every model spewing alarmism should be ignored immediately.

Governments are not elected to keep people healthy.

They are elected to act in our interests.

Was allowing us, without any official negation anywhere, to be told 150,000 people will die, out by a factor of 1450 to 1, in anyway responsible.

The problem is not just modelling. Alarmist modelling and their terrifying predictions are a symptom of todays society and its stupid focus on attempting to make everything safe.

The discussion, by experts, about modelling, should be looked as merely treating the symptom.
The real discussion should be about returning an acceptable risk and personal responsibility to the community.

Experts can't discuss that nor can our politician. Communities can.They only have to be listened to, and not ignored. Why trust only experts?.

I'd have said an acceptable risk would have been a death rate that was comparable to the annual flu death rates would have been acceptable. I would have suggested discussion on that focus would have been appropriate when death rate data was accumulating and that was about
3 months into the 'panic'.

It was around that time I had a letter published in the CM calling for 'the lockdown to be shutdown'. The CM editorial called for the same.

Soon after Fox commentators and participants started down the same track. I didn't listen to radio but I'd say the same probably occurred.

That was the community talking.

It was at that time the 'goal posts' moved from containment to eradication.
A discussion on this or acceptable risk never ever took place anywhere.

At least our politicians are not yet as bad as in Sicktoria, The Police State, but they are on their way.

SteeleRedux, I think Australia's, and much of the world's, response to this virus has been disproportionate and ill-targeted.

Sweden is an interesting outlier. In this regard, consider my BMJ rapid response: Looking at Sweden, COVID-19 and vitamin D... (13 July 2020), i.e.

Most of the reported COVID-19 deaths in Sweden are in the elderly - is there a problem with vitamin D deficiency in this age group?

Latest reported deaths in Sweden are 5,526 (pop. 10.23 million), with 1,428 deaths in people over 90. 2,300 deaths are reported for people in the age group 80-90. So that’s 3,728 of the deaths. Then there are reportedly 1,194 deaths in the age group 70-79. That’s 4,922 deaths across the age group 70 to over 90. There are 379 deaths reported across the ages 60-69. And 156 deaths in the age group 50-59. With a total of 69 deaths across the ages of 0-49 years.[1]

So most of the deaths are in the elderly age group 70 to 90, i.e. 4,922 deaths, people who are also likely to have comorbidities.

Some previous studies have identified vitamin D deficiency in Swedish nursing homes, see for example "Vitamin D deficiency was common among nursing home residents and associated with dementia: a cross sectional study of 545 Swedish nursing home residents"[2], and "Vitamin D deficiency in elderly people in Swedish nursing homes is associated with increased mortality"[3].

Considering Sweden as a whole, it seems most of the population remains alive and not adversely affected by SARS-CoV-2 in the prime of their lives. Perhaps Sweden has made the right decision not to grossly disrupt its society and the lives of millions of people with draconian lockdowns?

Internationally, the focus now should be on finding effective treatments and strategies for the sick, i.e. generally elderly people. And recommending long-term practical preventive measures for the population generally, to reduce the prospect of the illnesses which exacerbate the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and enhance health, e.g. promoting optimum vitamin D levels.

See my published BMJ rapid response for references: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2475/rr-12