Fines do not work, it has been proven over and over again.

People need to be made accountable by stating their names in the media, and also sending them to jail for at least a week.

READ MORE: Southern lockdown to end, but masks to remain

What happens if someone dies due to this, not everyone is vaccinated.

No one appears to want to take responsibility for letting this person on to the plane exposing innocent people to the virus.

Do we have to start suing airlines for having no duty of care? Someone has to start to take responsibility.

I FULLY support the Premier's decision to announce a lockdown in Tasmania's southern suburbs. I also feel that until we reach 90 per cent fully vaccinated we should not be allowing anyone into the state.

HAVE YOUR SAY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

As for the man who carried the virus into Tasmania, he should be put under lock and key along with his contact who also ignored regulations. We have gone so well for so long, but it only takes one idiot to ruin it.

TASMANIANS have every right to be furious about the irresponsible actions of an individual who has caused half the state to be forced into lockdown.

However, they should also be furious with the incompetence of the public servants who have designed, implemented and are overseeing quarantining that allowed such a simple and early escape to occur.

READ MORE: Bread + Butter relocating while new $27m office gets built

It's not good enough to blame the contracted security people for this as they can only do their job with what is provided or paid for, which it seems, wasn't much.

Throw the book at the offender but also throw it at the public servants responsible.

BECAUSE of some self-centred, self-serving moron who thought he was above the law, the southern half or our beautiful state has been forced into lockdown. It goes to show just how easy it is for this virus to spread thanks to idiots like this.

Never mind the $3000 fine, once past the infectious stage he should be imprisoned in the same way as the idiots who broke the rules to go to the AFL grand final.

People like this put the rest of us at risk and should be punished accordingly.

MARK Poynter, a professional forester, accuses Dr Jen Sanger of missing the point ("A case of not seeing the forest for the trees," The Examiner, October 16).

Actually, it's Mr Poynter who has missed the point.

Climate change is drying forests and no amount of machinery or experienced loggers can "manage" bushfires anymore.

Experienced fire chiefs like Greg Mullins have been shocked at the ferocity of recent fires, noting that even rainforests have burnt.

It's time to phase out logging native forests (as Western Australia and Victoria have announced) and move to more sustainable methods such as plantations and agroforestry of specialised hardwoods.

Growing specialised hardwoods on farms would also enable farmers to be paid for carbon abatement and improved biodiversity outcomes.

The ANU's Carbon+Biodiversity program, with the support of Nationals Deputy, David Littleproud, is currently under trial. New thinking is needed. Cutting down, pulping and burning native forests is old thinking.

AN airstrip in Antarctica makes the new Nuyina icebreaker redundant.

Why is the Australian government building an airstrip next to Davis station?

The Nuyina icebreaker has just arrived in Hobart to service Antarctic stations and cost $1.9 billion.

Surely this investment provides for ongoing research and maintenance in the area?

Scientists say that the multibillion-dollar airstrip project is unnecessary and will be damaging to wildlife.

The construction of the airstrip is likely to involve blasting of petrel rookeries, disturbance of penguin colonies, storm petrels and weddell seals, and would encase a 2.7km length of wilderness in more than 115,000 tonnes of concrete.

Is Australia scrambling to assert its international standing in Antarctica when it should be focusing on issues closer to home?

SCOTT Tilyard (The Examiner, October 17) claims that a 10km/h lowering of the speed limit would lead to a significant reduction in both the likelihood and severity of crashes.

He also says that this has been trialled in Kingborough initially as an experiment and later adopted but does not give any statistics on the Kingborough condition to support his claims.

Isn't this because there has been no statistically significant change in the road toll in that region?

What were the actual results of the trial, has the road toll fallen relative to areas that have not changed their limit?

We hear that the move was popular among residents, but were they professionally polled?