10 ms·

> You are being deliberately (maliciously?) misleading and scare mongering here. ... > people that have returned to the country I do not know who's being del

by nanis 5y ago

> 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-australias-home-quarantine-trial-work/100398878 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-23/how-will-south-austra...

closeparen 5y ago
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.
- nanis 5y ago
  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-and-communicable-diseases https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/infectious...
  - closeparen 5y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine [1] https://theconversation.com/why-are-australians-so-accepting-of-hotel-quarantine-a-long-history-of-confining-threats-to-the-state-155747 https://theconversation.com/why-are-australians-so-accepting...
    - uchiga 5y ago
      This terrifies me.
  - nl 5y ago
    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 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.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  It is not the purpose of government to go on scorched earth campaigns fighting every single pathogen without regard to the consequences.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    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.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      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.
- retrac 5y ago
  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.
- skocznymroczny 5y ago
  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%.
davesmylie 5y ago
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_
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Even with your clarification it's terrifying.
  - davesmylie 5y 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 - 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.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      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.
Clewza313 5y ago
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.
- chii 5y ago
  > 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.
  - type0 5y ago
    > 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
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by nanis 5y ago

closeparen 5y ago

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.

nanis 5y ago
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-and-communicable-diseases https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/infectious...
- closeparen 5y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine [1] https://theconversation.com/why-are-australians-so-accepting-of-hotel-quarantine-a-long-history-of-confining-threats-to-the-state-155747 https://theconversation.com/why-are-australians-so-accepting...
  - uchiga 5y ago
    This terrifies me.
- nl 5y ago
  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 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.
chitowneats 5y ago
It is not the purpose of government to go on scorched earth campaigns fighting every single pathogen without regard to the consequences.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  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.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    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.
retrac 5y ago
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.
skocznymroczny 5y ago
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%.

davesmylie 5y ago

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_

chitowneats 5y ago
Even with your clarification it's terrifying.
- davesmylie 5y 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 - 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.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    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.

Clewza313 5y ago

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.

chii 5y ago
> 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.
- type0 5y ago
  > 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

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]