If we are all to be expected to follow COVID-19 mitigation rules that limit our individual and family freedoms for the greater good then we expect not just those rules to be fair but all behaviours - especially those of big governments and big business - to be filtered through a fairness lens.

Two examples of apparent unfairness arose last week and were quickly jumped on.

One was the decision to allow some industry connected individuals to the Cox Plate (was reversed) and the other was the bonuses paid to Australia Post executives (including Cartier watches back in 2018).

In the pre-COVID world, few of us would have raised an eyebrow about either decision. The reason for the hue and cry is that three very basic principles of fairness seem to have been abrogated in each case, principles through which we now judge decisions including those made in the past.

The first is that like cases and only like cases should be treated alike.

We can call this the continuity principle.

By allowing one population cohort to break the principle for essentially a sporting/leisure event but no other cohorts for sporting/leisure events abrogated that principle.

With Australia Post the idea that there could be large public or private sector organisations 'profiteering' from COVID-19 circumstances makes us feel very uncomfortable, not a trend we would want to see.

The second principle, an equity principle, is that the distribution of burdens should not fall primarily on the poor, or conversely that any benefits from COVID-19 should not accrue primarily to the wealthy.

Whilst in our racing example there were no significant long-term distribution of benefits or burdens involved, the fact that many of the cohort are often seen as part of the wealthy and privileged elite immediately invoked an equity consideration.

And with Australia Post, the perception of fat cats dolling out bonuses to each other whilst businesses are going to the wall smacks of arrogance.

What may have been normal business decisions pre-COVID-19 are now being scrutinised for fairness through a new lens.

The third principle is that exceptions to the rule should be guided by a significant public interest or individual rights component.

So, whilst most people understand for example the restrictions on family travel for e.g. funerals even whilst they might not agree with them there is a logic at work - health safety overriding family rights.

However, with the racing example clearly the logic of owners etc. being present had no significant public interest or individual rights component in that the event is primarily about sport and leisure.

Important for some but probably not in the same category as attending a family funeral.

With Australia Post, it may well be that the business has been smart in boosting sales and market share but unlike for example frontline health workers who are putting their own health on the line.

Australia Post Executives don't seem to have a special case.

Not special enough to argue for exceptional circumstances and the link back to Cartier watches doesn't help.

So, the initial decision in each case appears to have breached all three principles.

If either decision had just breached any one principle it may have been survivable but in breaching all three principles both quickly became hot potatoes, too hot to handle.

In the back of our minds is the upcoming tricky question of fairness around the allocation of vaccines if and when they become available.

We are now attenuated to examples of unfairness with COVID-19 decisions and are quick to demand redress as we have seen this week.

In Tasmania, there is still no broad discussion or deep transparency about how many COVID-19 decisions are being made, including about vaccine allocation.

But the public will be watching very carefully to ensure the three fairness principles are present.