7 ms·

> 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 b

> 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?

nl 5y ago
> 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.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
> 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.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  Then catch those people and prosecute them. Why harass innocent people?
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    How exactly do you propose to do that?
    - perryizgr8 5y ago
      Isn't that the entire job of the police? Are they unable to do their job suddenly?
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        I don't think you're really thinking this thing through. How exactly would they find out that people are breaking quarantine at home in time to contain the situation? Remember, this is a situation where one person failing to quarantine can case a literal exponential amount of damage, if allowed to get away with it.
        perryizgr8 5y ago
        > How exactly would they find out that people are breaking quarantine at home in time to contain the situation? It doesn't matter. Enforcing the law is not my job. That is the police's job. They should do it, instead of trampling innocent people's freedoms.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        This answer is so hand-wavy. Surely you understand the point the other commenter is making. We shouldn't expect police to do the impossible trying to enforce our Orwellian quarantine restrictions. We should eliminate the restrictions.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        That is not what I was saying.
        perryizgr8 5y ago
        Of course I'd rather they do away with any restrictive laws. But if our lawmakers insist upon them, surely the onus of enforcing them falls upon the state machinery without infringing on citizens rights. "We made an unenforceable rule so now let us throw your rights away en masse so we can enforce it" sounds so dumb.
chii 5y ago
> 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.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  >the public cannot be trusted to make a personal sacrifice for the public good. The government is made up from persons in the "public." If the public cannot be trusted to act in the public good, the government cannot be trusted to do so either either. It sounds like your argument is towards some sort of authoritarianism / monarchy which removes power from the public so that someone can force them to act for the public good. I do admit you have a point that authoritarianism/monarchy has its advantages, and one is the ability to put a tighter control on populace undergoing a pandemic (short-sighted thinking is a fundamental weakness of democracies electing leaders for only a few years at a time).
  - chii 5y ago
    > The government is made up from persons in the "public." If the public cannot be trusted to act in the public good, the government cannot be trusted to do so either either. that's a false equivalency. An action on the part of the gov't does not equate to the "average" action of the general population. The very fact that there must be gov't mandated laws against stealing is evidence of this - otherwise, people would steal and loot! Plenty of people opposed to the draft in war, and yet it must be done in the public good. The only saving grace, because of western democracy, is that any gov't who continue to flounder the power granted to them, would (ostensibly) get voted out. This doesn't happen in an authoritarian gov't - like china for example. But people who claim mistrust of the public institutions are destroying that mechanism - leading to the very last US election, where some people are de-legitimizing the outcome because they believe that some "authoritarian" entity is forcing it upon them. I dont know whether these people are stupid, or brainwashed by something.
haswell 5y ago
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.
junon 5y ago
> 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.
- TheGreatReset 5y ago
  You're spreading disinformation. Israel debunks your baseless fantasy.
- skocznymroczny 5y ago
  The pandemic is prolonged by politicians prolonging it, not people refusing to masks or vaccinate. It doesn't seem like the highest vaccinated countries are relaxing their restrictions either. When comparing countries which masked heavily and ones that didn't, there's little correlation if any.
  - junon 5y ago
    Politicians don't dictate how virality in the natural world works.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    Denmark is the second highest vaccinated country in Europe, and the remaining restrictions will be withdrawn on 10 September. We also had high mask use, fairly low deaths, and fewer restrictions than most of Europe.
dwild 5y ago
> 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.
bendy303 5y ago
Australia is a nation of idiots. Thats why its a nanny state. For example, an autobahn, like in Germany, would never work in Australia. The citizens are too immature to be trusted...(btw, I am Aussie)

nl 5y ago

> 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.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

> 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.

perryizgr8 5y ago
Then catch those people and prosecute them. Why harass innocent people?
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  How exactly do you propose to do that?
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    Isn't that the entire job of the police? Are they unable to do their job suddenly?
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      I don't think you're really thinking this thing through. How exactly would they find out that people are breaking quarantine at home in time to contain the situation? Remember, this is a situation where one person failing to quarantine can case a literal exponential amount of damage, if allowed to get away with it.
      - perryizgr8 5y ago
        > How exactly would they find out that people are breaking quarantine at home in time to contain the situation? It doesn't matter. Enforcing the law is not my job. That is the police's job. They should do it, instead of trampling innocent people's freedoms.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        This answer is so hand-wavy. Surely you understand the point the other commenter is making. We shouldn't expect police to do the impossible trying to enforce our Orwellian quarantine restrictions. We should eliminate the restrictions.
        actually_a_dog 5y ago
        That is not what I was saying.
        perryizgr8 5y ago
        Of course I'd rather they do away with any restrictive laws. But if our lawmakers insist upon them, surely the onus of enforcing them falls upon the state machinery without infringing on citizens rights. "We made an unenforceable rule so now let us throw your rights away en masse so we can enforce it" sounds so dumb.

chii 5y ago

> 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.

quantumBerry 5y ago
>the public cannot be trusted to make a personal sacrifice for the public good. The government is made up from persons in the "public." If the public cannot be trusted to act in the public good, the government cannot be trusted to do so either either. It sounds like your argument is towards some sort of authoritarianism / monarchy which removes power from the public so that someone can force them to act for the public good. I do admit you have a point that authoritarianism/monarchy has its advantages, and one is the ability to put a tighter control on populace undergoing a pandemic (short-sighted thinking is a fundamental weakness of democracies electing leaders for only a few years at a time).
- chii 5y ago
  > The government is made up from persons in the "public." If the public cannot be trusted to act in the public good, the government cannot be trusted to do so either either. that's a false equivalency. An action on the part of the gov't does not equate to the "average" action of the general population. The very fact that there must be gov't mandated laws against stealing is evidence of this - otherwise, people would steal and loot! Plenty of people opposed to the draft in war, and yet it must be done in the public good. The only saving grace, because of western democracy, is that any gov't who continue to flounder the power granted to them, would (ostensibly) get voted out. This doesn't happen in an authoritarian gov't - like china for example. But people who claim mistrust of the public institutions are destroying that mechanism - leading to the very last US election, where some people are de-legitimizing the outcome because they believe that some "authoritarian" entity is forcing it upon them. I dont know whether these people are stupid, or brainwashed by something.

haswell 5y ago

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.

junon 5y ago

> 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.

TheGreatReset 5y ago
You're spreading disinformation. Israel debunks your baseless fantasy.
skocznymroczny 5y ago
The pandemic is prolonged by politicians prolonging it, not people refusing to masks or vaccinate. It doesn't seem like the highest vaccinated countries are relaxing their restrictions either. When comparing countries which masked heavily and ones that didn't, there's little correlation if any.
- junon 5y ago
  Politicians don't dictate how virality in the natural world works.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  Denmark is the second highest vaccinated country in Europe, and the remaining restrictions will be withdrawn on 10 September. We also had high mask use, fairly low deaths, and fewer restrictions than most of Europe.

dwild 5y ago

> 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.

bendy303 5y ago

Australia is a nation of idiots. Thats why its a nanny state. For example, an autobahn, like in Germany, would never work in Australia. The citizens are too immature to be trusted...(btw, I am Aussie)