We were constantly reminded of how they would reap ruin on Australian businesses and the economy at large. It was near impossible to hear a Coalition politician say a positive word about the trade union movement generally. Well, it seems that in this post-election COVID-19 world, the Coalition government has discovered a genuine common interest with the union movement.

We are told that the Industrial Relations Minister, Christian Porter, is in daily contact with the ACTU Secretary, Sally McManus. The government has just passed a $130 billion JobKeeper legislative package which looks very much like the same proposal it rejected only weeks ago. I believe the moral of this story is that this government, any government, will always do better if it works with the labour movement, rather than demonises it.

I HAVE to congratulate our government in the way they have handled this crisis. Not just the economics but the messaging. It's probably not perfect but what is, especially at a time of great stress. Now we seem to have got the message about social, or should I say medical, distancing.

Now the discussion turns to its duration being slightly longer, certainly well after Easter, Mr Trump. The virus is seeded into the community now and in many cases asymptomatically, so any relaxation of the rules would cause exponential growth again. Hence the need to keep our collective feet to the pedal.

But then thinking forward and as to how many people can be tested and confirmed as having had the virus and survived its effects. If they are immune will they be identified and allowed back to work? What work best fits with what the community needs?

Once we know such people are immune then medical staff and those who can carry out more extensive testing would further enhance our position. I have no idea how much test kits cost, their global availability and the competition for them. However they presumably feature short term as the major weapon to defer this virus while we await the vaccine.

THE High Court of Australia decision to quash child abuse findings by lower courts that George Pell was guilty of child sexual abuse will generate vigorously expressed differences of opinion as to whether justice has now been finally delivered. The decision could possibly also open up for public questioning the value of continuing the status quo of jury trials and the court of appeal.

The High Court of Australia it would appear has deemed both the jury trial and the appeals court decisions to have been defective.

As to the question of whether justice finally been delivered, I believe the premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, successfully encapsulated the thoughts of many Australians when he said to victims of clergy abuse: "I have no comment about today's High Court decision. But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. And I believe you."

WHAT a farce our legal system has become. George Pell was found guilty by a jury who had "no reasonable doubt" he committed the crime. Otherwise they would have found him not guilty.

What do we do now? Do away with the jury service and replace it by just the judge making the decision? This will only serve to deter those abused from coming forward, as they lose faith in the system.

SCOTT Hillard (Letters, 30/3) might not be aware that, according to the US Centres for Disease Control, 55 per cent of COVID-19 hospitalisations are people aged under 65.

Yes, it's true that only 20 per cent of deaths have been in this group. But with 55 per cent of hospitalisations and 47 per cent of ICU admissions, it's clear younger people are at significant risk. If the hospital system is over-run, the risk of death to everyone dependent on it goes up, including those admitted to it whether in ICU or not, but also those for whom there is just no space to be found.

It's clear that the epidemiologists, infectious disease doctors, economists and politicians have all examined the possibility of 'letting the virus rip and burn out quickly' while 'isolating and protecting those at high risk' as Mr Hillard recommends.

I'm not qualified in any of those areas so I can only repeat what I've read they concluded. The 'those at high risk' category is not sufficiently precise to be confident we can isolate and protect them while the virus 'rips' through the rest of the community. The rest of the community is still sufficiently at risk that they would still overwhelm the health system quickly if the virus was let rip, and more of them would die than necessary.

We also don't yet know enough to be sure that one infection confers lifelong immunity. So a person might contract the virus, recover, be immune for some months, then contract it again - and the second time they might not recover. So the claim the virus would 'burn out quickly' is far from certain.

Remember also that death isn't the only bad outcome from severe respiratory disease. Some people who recover will suffer life-altering sequelae and disabilities.

CHRISTINE Everingham is at it again. This time she has dragged John Hudson along with her. Both need to read the article that was in the Herald before complaining about the possible Supercars calendar change. Although the December date for the Newcastle 500 may not have been ideal, the CEO did say that there was enough flexibility to leave Bathurst, Gold Coast and Newcastle at their set dates, due to lengthy set up and use of pit building at multiple events.

WHY are return and earn stations still operating? These venues are at the best of times, dirty, germ-ridden, and smelly. Now in this pandemic they are still allowed to operate. It just befuddles me completely. Every item has had a set of lips on them. Or cigarette butts sucked on by who knows who. I rang the council and they told me it was deemed a necessity. For God's sake, I want this pandemic over with quickly. And this is a necessity? I do question the powers that be who make these stupid decisions.