Oh, I didn’t initially realize it was only for those quarantining. If it’s being trialed as a sort of high tech alternative to e.g. traditional house arrest with geolocked ankle bracelets, then maybe it’s fine. But I don’t like the idea of treating people who are quarantining as if they are under house arrest or are criminals. I could kind of see the reasoning behind not trusting them to stick to their quarantine and idk what kind of solution would be reasonable to verify compliance without invading privacy. This app and police showing up if you don’t take a picture within 15 minutes of being randomly texted almost seems like parole officer check-ins in terms of invasiveness. I don’t know how the app would handle someone being asleep or having forgotten to charge their phone etc. Lots of extra money/police time going to be spent on police visits if they haven’t figured out how to address those cases without having police go over in person.
yeah me neither. i had an impression the scope was gonna be broader.
yeah it’s pretty damn invasive.
I wonder if an unspoken intention behind policies like these is to deter people from taking COVID-19 risks because if they get sick, they’ll have to face terrible treatment like this. If so, that’s pretty damn manipulative and not OK… I can get how jailtime or sentencing can be designed to deter criminals partially, but designing public policy to punish people for getting sick so that they restrict themselves or live in unnecessary fear seems unacceptable to me. Idk if that’s part of the thought process behind the policies though.
The Atlantic changed this quote after the fact. I just looked at The Atlantic article, and the current quote is:
Returning travelers quarantining at home will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation.
I checked archive.is and their earliest version of the article has the wording from Justin’s quote.
The original wording was really misleading. People aren’t being forced to download the app: they are being given the option to opt-in to a home-based quarantine trial that requires the app.
From South Australia’s page on home quarantining:
Is Home Quarantine SA compulsory?
No. Home Quarantine SA is voluntary at this time. It provides a safe, sustainable and cost effective alternative to medi-hotel quarantine.
My understanding is that the alternative for returning travelers is a mandatory hotel quarantine at their own expense ($3000-$5000 AUD). So it seems a bit weird to paint the app for home-based quarantine as particularly invasive. (Note: I haven’t looked into it at length, and am not sure exactly who has to do a mandatory hotel quarantine & under what circumstances. I think it is required for most people returning from overseas, but I am not sure about its use for interstate travelers.)
I just checked the article for any corrections notes:
** This article originally failed to specify that South Australia’s quarantine app will be required only of people quarantining at home, not those quarantining in hotels.*
That seems like not the primary issue with the original wording?
Yeah, it seems to fail to specify that it only applied to returning travelers at all:
Here is the full paragraph from the original:
Intrastate travel within Australia is also severely restricted. And the government of South Australia, one of the country’s six states, developed and is now testing an app as Orwellian as any in the free world to enforce its quarantine rules. People in South Australia will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall explained. “I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.”
They mention in there that intrastate travel is restricted, but don’t mention that this app is meant for returning travelers. It could be read as applying to everyone, to make sure they don’t travel if they aren’t allowed.
The article does call it a “home-based quarantine app” at the bottom, but they don’t say anything about who would be quarantining or why. Just saying “[p]eople in South Australia will be forced to download an app…” makes it sound like everyone will be forced to download it. So it could be read as the government just putting everyone under a mandatory home quarantine, with random check-ins required.
That’s how I initially read it. It seems like it was written specifically to create that impression, and then they probably got push back when people noticed the misleading nature of the article and did a stealth edit and dishonest correction notice
This article about the mandatory quarantine hotels in Australia gives some context. I can see why people would be happy to use a tracking app with random check-ins to avoid the hotel system.
Re: “Australia Traded Away Too Much Liberty”
I basically agree with the title, but I think the article has major issues (Rossmann did a vid on this today, which is where I saw/read it).
There are some major factors that are left out, and the recent timeline of events is left out. I’d say the biggest issue is that *most of what is mentioned is not applicable to Australia as a whole, but is particular to states in Australia, at different times, and in different circumstances. Example: South Australia (with that app) has these restrictions right now. It’s long, but mild by comparison to NSW.
One major problem w/ the article is that it poorly explains the broader political/constitutional context – for example, why are there so many differences between each state?
Western Australia has ~0 cases / day atm, whereas NSW (my state) has ~1500 new cases / day. Why does South Australia have that app, but NSW doesn’t, even tho NSW has the largest outbreak?
(mb relevant and worth keeping in mind: our states are large and few. there is a lot of distance between capitals. Sydney → Melbourne is approx New York → Charlotte/Cincinnati. They’re considered pretty close in the scheme of things.)
The main reason for this is that health stuff is a state-level responsibility (besides aged care, which is federal). Thus, closing state borders is an option, and inter-state quarantine is a thing. State-level politics has been more important these last 18 months than at any other time I can remember. Additionally, it means that states have different allowances and restrictions on international travel. Making the issue more difficult is that many adjacent states have alternating major parties in power. QLD is Labor (left), NSW is the Coalition, Liberals + Nationals, (right; tho both are neither unless convenient), and Victoria is Labor (left). That’s our eastern cost running north to south. (the island-state of Tasmania, south of Vic, has a Liberal govt atm – don’t think the nationals operate down there). Communication with neighbors isn’t v good.
There is incredible competition between states atm to remain covid free or to control an outbreak if it occurs, particularly because there is a federal election in the next 6-8 months, and state-level support tends to correlate with federal-level support. Federal parties will lean on state parties – and vice versa – depending on proximity to elections; e.g., Federal Labor are probably v happy that QLD has had a very successful time with covid – our Federal Govt atm is the Coalition, so Labor is in opposition.
Here’s another problem:
This might be factually accurate, but it misrepresents the situation. To start with, yes, our federal govt didn’t prioritize it originally (I think vaccines cost us about $5 each atm, but idk if that includes the second dose – and IDK what prices would have been like 6 months ago). But the past 2 months have been intense in this regard – we have something like 50 million guaranteed doses, now, for a country of 25 million ppl (including children) – that’s 50 million (shots+boosters), so 100 million jabs.
The quote (one paragraph) has the structure: [inadequate investment] [too slow to get them in arms (not true)] [excess AZ] [ppl don’t want it b/c TTS]. This paints one problem (ppl don’t want AZ) as another problem (govt f’d up). The distribution has been questionable (e.g. pfizer pulled from some areas to benefit others, more than once), but making jabs available has been a major priority. I just checked a pharmacy near me – I could get a booking for AZ-1 any time from 10am to 6pm tomorrow. That was the first option I clicked on the list. (the second one I clicked had 6 slots (15 min increments) open tomorrow)
From Aug 1:
Right now it’s 38.2% and 62.75%. NSW has seen the largest growth b/c this is where the outbreak is.
(Note: that’s national, but often things are tracked by state here b/c of the distribution of cases/policies)
The federal govt has been ordering vaccines like crazy, so it’s not surprising that there’s inventory atm.
Also, duration between jabs is min 3 weeks for Pfizer and 6 weeks for AZ (only those two are approved/available atm) – and the plan is to reduce lockdowns (and reintroduce freedoms) incrementally at 70% double dose - depending on the state. The national ‘phase C’ breakpoint is at 80%, but each state has a lot of autonomy, still. For NSW, you only get freedoms if you’re double-dose vaccinated, so the carrot-and-stick is attached to the second dose which is further away if you have AZ (not to mention the differences in efficacy having 2nd AZ 6 weeks early); Estimates atm is that NSW will hit the 70% target mid-october, so it’s already too late to have AZ if you want to do things the day that ‘non-essential’ stuff reopens. (at least in NSW)
Another example: I know elderly ppl who had planned to get AZ, decided against it, subsequently been able to get pfizer, and then ended up fully vaccinated than if they’d had AZ.
So yeah, there’s anti-AZ stuff b/c of the TTS thing, but there’s also rational economic reasons for ppl to prefer pfizer instead.
WRT AZ, I gather the (global) supply is more accessible in general, too – or at least has been for Aus. I had my first AZ dose like 6 hours after I booked the appointment in the first week of July. I could get the 2nd one tomorrow but am planning on waiting till late-sept or early-oct to maximize efficacy (not particularly at risk and it won’t make a diff wrt lockdown till mid-oct anyway).
So, yeah, Australia sorta sucks atm – for about 70% of the population (e.g., WA has like no restrictions atm besides inter-state/international stuff). But the article doesn’t really represent what’s going on here very well, IMO.
Also – my impression is that Australians are, on the whole, in favor of the various measures that are being taken whilst those’re thought necessary.
We’ve already had a long mostly-free experience during these covid years – like only 4-6 months total in lockdown, out of like 18 mo. It’s been almost BAU the rest of the time; for most of the pandemic, the only consistent situation I’ve had to wear a mask was on public transport. (Masks have been mandated – indoors – for mb 5 / 18 months in Sydney, and moreso with delta).
Many ppl are willing to put up with this atm b/c of the 70% double dose stick + decent vaccine rollout (at least WRT the past few months).
So, I’d say that article – similar to our governments – might be summed up like ‘good intentions, bad execution’.
Anyway, I think the reality is that our problems are deeper that this.
I think some of the measures put in place are really bad.
In particular the caps on arrivals, which have left tens of thousands of people stranded overseas during a global pandemic, including something like 400 children without their parents.
There were around 200 kids in India without their parents, and for over a year the government wouldn’t allow the parents an exemption to leave Australia to go pick the kid up, and wouldn’t allow the extended family (who the kid was staying with) an exemption to accompany the child to Australia to reunite with their parents. I think they’ve recently started allowing exemptions, but those still have their own difficulties.
That seems pretty unforgivable for a country to do to its own citizens.
Sources:
Strict COVID Travel Rules Leave Thousands Of Aussies Stranded Abroad : Goats and Soda : NPR
New options for parents of children stranded by COVID in India - ABC News
Government subsidy of academia is bad and leads to ridiculously high prices for some academic books, like this one: