Preferences

> You are being deliberately (maliciously?) misleading and scare mongering here.

...

> people that have returned to the country

I do not know who's being deliberately misleading here.

Please note[1]:

> It will start this week for people returning from New South Wales and Victoria.

> People wanting to return to South Australia and home quarantine will have to apply to SA Health.

So this is clearly applicable to Australian citizens within Australia. Citizens of Australia are not allowed to move freely within Australia. Before an Australian citizen can travel from one part of Australia to another part of Australia, they have to ask the government to allow them to do so. They must accede to the points I listed.

After that the government will expand the program to international travelers.

Once a populace accepts that they are not allowed travel and that the government can arbitrarily place people under house arrest and subject to torture (and knowledge of random intrusions into your life can happen at any time - even during a long, relaxing shower or something is psychological torture), there isn't much that will stop people with the power from expanding their control.

[1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-23/how-will-south-austra...


apologies. I meant travelers from other states, but my point still stands - it's a temporary measure that impacts only a small set of people who travel from another state, who would ordinarily be in dedicated quarantine facility

Instead they are being allow to quarantine from the comfort of their home, and if they choose to do so they have to use an app to prove they are staying at home, but again this is only for the short duration of their quarantine period.

You are scare mongering and trying to make this something that it isn't - it isn't being forced on large numbers of people, let alone the entire state. It's not intended to be used by people not in quarantine, and for those are in quarantine, they only need it _whislst they are still in quarantine_

Even with your clarification it's terrifying.
personally given the option between spending 14 days in a fully catered quarantine hotel room, versus spending 14 days in the comfort of my own house with a big backyard, my home office, my workshop and music instruments etc, with only the caveat being I'd have to check-in on a mobile app once a day - it's just not even a choice and I struggle to see how any one would chose a the former as a preferable option.

However, if your outrage is actually about a states right to enforce a quarantine on potentially infected incoming travellers during a pandemic fullstop .... well my friend, that's a ship that has long since sailed - literally hundreds of years ago.

> personally given the option between spending 14 days in a fully catered quarantine hotel room, versus spending 14 days in the comfort of my own house with a big backyard, my home office, my workshop and music instruments etc, with only the caveat being I'd have to check-in on a mobile app once a day

That is false dilemma. In free society law-abiding citizens are trusted to observe the law even without persistent surveillance.

We also do not carry persistent surveillance tool to control whether we do not steal or assault, so why not handle quarantine the same way?

Apple’s recent on-device scanning announcement is a direct counter example to both paragraphs.

Anecdotally, I received an automated speeding ticket in the mail today. I went 36 in a 30. I really try to be a good driver, and generally watch my speed, but apparently I didn’t that day. But was I confronted by the officer who clocked me? No, I was the only car in sight. I received high resolution photos of my car and video is available online for my review. If that’s not persistent surveillance, I don’t know what else to call it.

What you describe is what should be, but we are witnessing disturbing trends unfold.

> In free society law-abiding citizens are trusted to observe the law even without persistent surveillance.

for something like a pandemic, the public cannot be trusted to make a personal sacrifice for the public good.

As long as such surveillance is limited to such medical emergencies, and rescinded afterwards, it is acceptable. Of course, this requires that the citizens be vigilant, but the current protesting, and fear-mongering and misinformation is beyond just being vigilant, but is instead defying health orders and delaying the end of the pandemic. If that's not stupid, i dont know what is.

> why not handle quarantine the same way?

Because the pandemy has a huge societal cost that can be alleviated quickly if you get people to follow the law.

If you get people to stop stealing or assaulting for a month using measures, it won't cause less stealing or assaulting afterward.

> That is false dilemma. In free society law-abiding citizens are trusted to observe the law even without persistent surveillance.

That's the problem. People are not obeying the law.

> law-abiding citizens are trusted to observe the law

And yet a large percentage of the US still refuses to wear masks or vaccinate, effectively prolonging the pandemic they so loathe to begin with, and go against simple mask mandates for the sole reason they're laws in the first place.

So so much for that theory. We've proven it's not a rule, but a baseless fantasy.

> We also do not carry persistent surveillance tool to control whether we do not steal or assault, so why not handle quarantine the same way?

That's an easy answer. Consequences.

When one single person not following the rules can force the entire state into a lockdown (as was the cause in NSW) the trade off makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I'm sure that everyone is able to afford the luxury of a big backyard, a home office, a workshop and music instruments.

As a person that had to stay in quarantine for going back home for the last weeks of my mothers life due terminal cancer, I had to stay 10 days locked in my home, even having countless tests, not even knowing if she would be alive and being told that they can make an exception for the funeral - so kind of them. We were treated like some sub-human criminals by the police, being called and checked (some friends who had their daughters coming from university back home had to come to the window every morning, all 4 members of the family to get "counted" by a police officer). What's funny is that 1 year before the pandemic my house was broken into, never heard back from the police, but it's good to see that they are doing their job in checking up on us, the virus criminals.

It's the digital infrastructure you now have in place that is terrifying. If you don't understand how, once these tools are built, they will be abused, I don't know what to tell you, my friend.

And yes requiring 14 day mandatory quarantine for interstate travel is insane. The virus is endemic. You all in Australia are struggling in futility against one of the strongest forces of nature, its virome. Most of the rest of the Western world is looking on in horror. Even writers at The Atlantic. Best of luck, though. Sincerely.

> It's the digital infrastructure you now have in place that is terrifying. If you don't understand how, once these tools are built, they will be abused, I don't know what to tell you, my friend.

I can almost guarantee the infrastructure this is running on is USA owned AWS.

> You all in Australia are struggling in futility against one of the strongest forces of nature.

Well actually, most of the states in oz have delta either under control/trending down towards elimination again, or in the case of tazzy, totally eliminated. It's only NSW that's struggling (which co-incidentally is the state giving people the option of quarantining at home with the use of this app).

Personally, I'm from over the ditch in NZ. Our delta cases peaked at 84 a week or so back, down towards 28 today after two weeks of a pretty relaxed lockdown. Most of NZ is now out of the hard lockdown, and probably should be back to normal in another couple of weeks. I'm looking forward to yet another covid free summer, with no worries about masks, crowded sports stadiums and camp grounds or me/anyone I know personally getting the virus.

Yup, we're bound to catch it eventually I'm sure, but I'm looking forward to getting it much later when we have better treatments that don't involve horse worming medication. Treatment/mitigation is much better now than it was 18 months ago, and I'm sure in a year or so, it will be better still.

It is not endemic in many states in Australia.

But please, continue looking on in horror at us from (I'm assuming) America. Your post is a wonderful mix of condescending tone and factual inaccuracy, with the added cherry-on-top that you have absolutely moronic states like Florida "fighting for their freedoms" by banning mask mandates. This would be infuriating if it wasn't so painfully stupid.

I'm in the thick of this lockdown and frankly I'm damn sick of people from one of the most dysfunctional counties on the planet trying to dictate what we do! Sure, we've fucked up many things and day-by-day we're getting better and better at fucking them up, nevertheless we're still eons behind the dizzying heights you Americans have reached.

Unlike many Americans, most Australians would prefer to yield to principle than to suicide over it. The pathological notion that your country has for so-called freedoms (which never really existed anyway) is something the world watches with aghast amazement—right, you don't see it as you're in the thick of it but the rest of the world does (the fact that we also speak a form of English is now a source of an embarrassment to us). (And it's now even worse since the Afghanistan fiasco—sorry I mean the Vietnam repeat exercise.)

Let's get a few facts straight: clearly you—along with many of your fellow countrymen—haven't a clue about what happened during earlier pandemics in the US. Right, you're clueless about your own US history in respect of previous pandemics or you'd be much more circumspect in your criticism of others. I would strongly suggest that you examine the rules, laws and regulations that were in place in the US during the 1918-20 Spanish Flu pandemic and you'll find that some of them would put anything we've done over here to shame! Go on—do a search, then read and learn!

Let me continue: I'd also suggest that you Americans had absolutely no qualms about quarantining Mary Mallon (Typhoid Mary) for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon. Her life must have been hell because of her forced incarceration. Your antiquated health system had no proper way of managing her so you just locked her up then let her rot until she died!

And more, let me quote "Quarantined for Life: The Tragic History of US Leprosy Colonies - Stripped of their most basic human rights, patients nonetheless built lives and communities": https://www.history.com/news/leprosy-colonies-us-quarantine. I've nothing to add as the story speaks for itself.

There's much more but I've proved my point.

Now to the local facts here. The fact that we were not strict enough in policing the disease is the reason that it got away from us. That we let international people in and some damn taxi driver idiot drove an infected aircrew to a hotel without protection started it all. If we'd implemented the strict quarantine measures that we had had in place in 1918-19 for the Spanish Flu then it would not have escaped anywhere near as easily.

"Most of the rest of the Western world is looking on in horror. Even writers at The Atlantic."

Oh yeah, if most of the rest of the world is looking at us then it's turned away from looking at you out of horror, we're comic relief by comparison.

Next factoid: the per capita death rate in the US leapfrogs over ours here in Australia by at least an order of magnitude. Why? Because millions of bloody-mined Americans won't wear masks or get vaccinated out of principle (lunacy). Right, they'd prefer to suffer COVID and likely die rather than to admit they're wrong—very grossly wrong (frankly it's sickening to watch it playing out like a tragic soap opera on our TVs every day—all this from the so-called leader of the free world). Even your president says 'it's now a pandemic of the unvaccinated.'

No wonder the Chinese are gloating and laughing themselves sick. If the whole horrible shemozzle weren't so utterly tragic then one would reckon we were watching an episode of the Keystone Cops.

Next time, do your research, get your facts right (I know that's a damned hard ask given that in the US the word 'fact' has come to mean anything or utterance that its utterer thinks it ought to be).

P.S. Keep the downvotes coming, they're further verifying my points!

> it's just not even a choice and I struggle to see how any one would chose a the former as a preferable option.

What if you do not possess a smartphone? What choice do you have, then? Are you just forced into hotel quarantine or do they lend you a smartphone? (Genuine question.)

I'm guessing, but they will probably do police visits periodically as they do with existing home quarantine (i.e. if you're a close contact of a case).
Nowadays you can get a used smartphone for free.
You can, but do you have to? Are Australian citizens required by law to possess a smartphone? Is it not a choice of the individual?
If you have the means to travel far enough to be subjected to quarantine, you have the means to spend $100 on a phone.
Even house arrest is from the comfort of your home.
> it's a temporary measure

What is the span of temporary here ?

For better or worse, Australia is a federal state and individual states have a wide degree of freedom to impose rules on their populace.

I'm a little surprised we didn't see similar moves in the US, but COVID spread so quickly there that it would have been kind of meaningless. The maritime provinces of Canada, though, had a very similar arrangement at one point, effectively cutting them off from the rest of the country.

All that said, I do think Australia is on a very slippery slope here and the current government is no fan of civil liberties. The restrictions on leaving Australia are particularly indefensible.

> The restrictions on leaving Australia are particularly indefensible

if those leaving would sign a waiver that they may be refused entry back (e.g., people who left australia after the first wave, but decided to come back when delta variant first appeared), then it would be ok to let them leave.

> if those leaving would sign a waiver that they may be refused entry back (e.g., people who left australia after...

Aussies have the whole empty continent nearby to banish the wrong-thinkers to exile /s

Sanitation is one of the most basic premises of civilization. Better question is how a government could claim any legitimacy while allowing infectious diseases to freely circulate.
As a society, we accept certain risks in the name of freedom. Why wouldn't alcohol be banned? It's easily linked to thousands of people dead in car accidents, it's easily linked to domestic violence. Let's ban it and save thousands of lives. How many more people need to die before we enact the laws?

But we don't. Because we don't restrict freedoms for responsible 99% just to take care of the remaining 1%.

It is not the purpose of government to go on scorched earth campaigns fighting every single pathogen without regard to the consequences.
Why not? A proper explanation please. Many of us aren't suicidal yet but we're getting that way because of the inane and inconsiderate comments of others.

BTW, there's historical precedence, check what happened during the Spanish flu pandemic.

There's also "historical precedence" for governments to systematically exterminate vulnerable or minority parts of their population. This doesn't mean that it is a necessary component of a functioning government.

Sanitation expectations and standards fluctuate wildly amongst different cultures and populations; that doesn't mean your ethnocentric view on sanitation makes your civilization better than other ones.

Homosexuals and other groups were widely persecuted in the 1980s in Western countries in reaction to HIV/AIDS. We can completely lose our senses when it comes to the threat of contamination.
I see, so you are claiming that governments in Australia have always dealt with infectious diseases using oppression?

Specifically, I am wondering whether similar methods were used to deal with the following[1]:

> #How common are notifiable infectious diseases?

> More than 593,000 cases of notifiable diseases were reported to the NNDSS in 2019. Four infectious diseases accounted for 82% of these notifications to Australian health authorities in 2019:

> * influenza—more than 313,000 notifications

> * chlamydia—almost 103,000 notifications

> * campylobacter (a gastrointestinal infection)—almost 36,000 notifications

> * gonorrhoea—more than 34,000 notifications.

[1]: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/infectious...

The word quarantine literally refers to the 40 days a new arrival would be required to spend aboard his ship before disembarking, as early as the 14th century [0]. In Australia, the practice dates to at least the 1830s [1].

Public health gets involved in notifying the partners of STD index cases, with varying degrees of coercion.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine

[1] https://theconversation.com/why-are-australians-so-accepting...

All of these diseases are either much less infectious than Covid or much less dangerous, or both.

> I see, so you are claiming that governments in Australia have always dealt with infectious diseases using oppression?

Ignoring for the moment the prerogative term "oppression", using the rule of law to stop the spread of hazards is pretty common.

In South Australia we've had to throw put fresh fruit when bringing it from interstate because of the risk of fruit fly infection, and there are currently strong restrictions stopping movement of fruit between postcodes because of an outbreak, eg: https://fruitfly.sa.gov.au/outbreak-restrictions/red-area

This is a restriction on movement of potential infection vectors. SA remains free of Covid, and until we can get our vaccination rate up I'd prefer to have this restriction than a lockdown.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal