Sydunipete that would work but the percentage of hotel quarantine testing positive is still quite high so your idea does put a bit more pressure on the monitoring system, which is being overwhelmed at the moment by local transmission tracking. A tracking bracelet may work but will people wear it (literally). The issue is the sheer scale of what you propose prusumably with several thousand a day coming in, all having to be monitored and clogging up the court (justice) system if they don't follow the rules.
A week after the last post on this subject, and I find it all a bit frustrating. The reality is that Australia's border policy has not worked significantly better than other countries who allow their citizens to come and go; we are the ONLY democratic country in the world that has banned its citizens from leaving without permission, and yet - as of today - the infection rate and death rate is higher than in New York City, and higher than Taiwan, South Korea, and other countries that do not have draconian laws around movement.
Isn't this the time to revisit a policy that isn't working, and reevaluate?
I have raised this issue with friends and colleagues, who say "well, it would have worked if Victoria...quarantine....hotels....".
That's like saying that US intelligence infrastructure was perfect on 9/11, it just missed one thing. A fail is a fail, and if it has failed, it wasn't good enough.
So - we're back at square 1. Lockdown and curfew for 20% of the Australian population doesn't look like a success to me. 400+ infections a day does not look like success. If the lockdown halts transmission after 6 weeks, and life returns to normal, great - perhaps success at last.
But has the refusal to allow citizens and residents to leave the country achieved ANYTHING? Is there data on how many Australians MIGHT have gone to visit their loved one in Paris, and who MIGHT have got sick? And who MIGHT have brought it back from Athens? And who MIGHT have skipped town while they were supposed to be in quarantine, because some guard MIGHT not have been paying attention?
There's none, because the policy is based on no scientific data. "Might" is not evidence. And that is why no one else, anywhere in the world is doing it.
Instead, the policy says to Victorians: stay where you are, despite the rising cases, the rising deaths, and the city being less safe from Covid than New York, or London, or Paris. You're stuck here, by virtue of where your apartment is, where your job is, or where you were last week.
Lockdown is justifiable - there's much evidence that it works - but preventing some poor person from visiting their relatives in Malta? Greece?
Just dumb, draconian, cruel and selfish.
If the country is to boast of its "follow the science"mantra, it'd be good if everyone followed the science. Work from home if you can. Stay out of indoor pubs and restaurants. Wear a mask. Keep physical distance.
But stopping my 75 year old neighbor in Fitzroy from being with her daughter in London if she so chooses?
Nyjoe a good point on freedom to leave as long as they are happy with the 50 seats per flight (i.e business class fare) and hotel quarantine coming back, which works if everybody follows the rules (yes I am looking at you Victoria). Also I could nit pick and say Malaysia is a democracy that requires exit permits. And city wide lockdowns and closed borders are on the agenda across the world this week.
PerFlyer, indeed, the Guardian's position is already known before you even read the article. I haven't read it yet but assume they're spreading fear and trying to justify their stance using spin in order to manufacture public consent to the present stringent measures. The Guardian is no different to most other MSM here, including the Murdoch owned news or CNN. The only difference is they present themselves as being more "sophisticated and refined" but in reality they are merely far-left as you have correctly alluded to.
patrickk
patrickk
Qantas
Member since 19 Apr 2012
Total posts 736
Sydunipete that would work but the percentage of hotel quarantine testing positive is still quite high so your idea does put a bit more pressure on the monitoring system, which is being overwhelmed at the moment by local transmission tracking. A tracking bracelet may work but will people wear it (literally). The issue is the sheer scale of what you propose prusumably with several thousand a day coming in, all having to be monitored and clogging up the court (justice) system if they don't follow the rules.
nyjoe4
nyjoe4
Member since 21 Dec 2016
Total posts 2
A week after the last post on this subject, and I find it all a bit frustrating. The reality is that Australia's border policy has not worked significantly better than other countries who allow their citizens to come and go; we are the ONLY democratic country in the world that has banned its citizens from leaving without permission, and yet - as of today - the infection rate and death rate is higher than in New York City, and higher than Taiwan, South Korea, and other countries that do not have draconian laws around movement.
Isn't this the time to revisit a policy that isn't working, and reevaluate?
I have raised this issue with friends and colleagues, who say "well, it would have worked if Victoria...quarantine....hotels....".
That's like saying that US intelligence infrastructure was perfect on 9/11, it just missed one thing. A fail is a fail, and if it has failed, it wasn't good enough.
So - we're back at square 1. Lockdown and curfew for 20% of the Australian population doesn't look like a success to me. 400+ infections a day does not look like success. If the lockdown halts transmission after 6 weeks, and life returns to normal, great - perhaps success at last.
But has the refusal to allow citizens and residents to leave the country achieved ANYTHING? Is there data on how many Australians MIGHT have gone to visit their loved one in Paris, and who MIGHT have got sick? And who MIGHT have brought it back from Athens? And who MIGHT have skipped town while they were supposed to be in quarantine, because some guard MIGHT not have been paying attention?
There's none, because the policy is based on no scientific data. "Might" is not evidence. And that is why no one else, anywhere in the world is doing it.
Instead, the policy says to Victorians: stay where you are, despite the rising cases, the rising deaths, and the city being less safe from Covid than New York, or London, or Paris. You're stuck here, by virtue of where your apartment is, where your job is, or where you were last week.
Lockdown is justifiable - there's much evidence that it works - but preventing some poor person from visiting their relatives in Malta? Greece?
Just dumb, draconian, cruel and selfish.
If the country is to boast of its "follow the science"mantra, it'd be good if everyone followed the science. Work from home if you can. Stay out of indoor pubs and restaurants. Wear a mask. Keep physical distance.
But stopping my 75 year old neighbor in Fitzroy from being with her daughter in London if she so chooses?
Pathetic.
patrickk
patrickk
Qantas
Member since 19 Apr 2012
Total posts 736
Nyjoe a good point on freedom to leave as long as they are happy with the 50 seats per flight (i.e business class fare) and hotel quarantine coming back, which works if everybody follows the rules (yes I am looking at you Victoria). Also I could nit pick and say Malaysia is a democracy that requires exit permits. And city wide lockdowns and closed borders are on the agenda across the world this week.
Michael R
Michael R
Member since 25 Jun 2020
Total posts 2
Great ABC Radio discussion of the crazy travel ban.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/adelaide/programs/am/stranded-across-borders/12538464
TheFreqFlyer
TheFreqFlyer
Member since 05 Oct 2017
Total posts 89
PerFlyer, indeed, the Guardian's position is already known before you even read the article. I haven't read it yet but assume they're spreading fear and trying to justify their stance using spin in order to manufacture public consent to the present stringent measures. The Guardian is no different to most other MSM here, including the Murdoch owned news or CNN. The only difference is they present themselves as being more "sophisticated and refined" but in reality they are merely far-left as you have correctly alluded to.