Three teenagers from the indigenous Binjari community recently escaped from one of Australia’s internment facilities, the “Centre for National Resilience”. The authorities had initially rounded them up and interned them, it appears, for the non-crime of being in contact with covid-positive people, not because they carried any virus or posed any sort of threat. — NOS4A2

You obviously don't need to commit a crime to be sequestered. We also lock up crazy people when they haven't committed a crime. And in this case, being in close contact with a covid-positive person means you can become a vector for transmission as it takes time before viral load is sufficient to be picked up by a PCR test. About 24 hours before a PCR test is positive, you can transmit the virus. In Australia they've opted to quarantaine such people in separate facilities to ensure the disease doesn't spread any further. By comparison, in the Netherlands you're supposed to self-quarantine for five days after the last close contact with a Covid-positive person.

The facility seems a frightening place, to me, especially for children. — NOS4A2

A frightening place? Sure. That's because you're apparently a pussy and your confirmation bias doesn't allow you to quote the upside of the experience. So let me:

In Australia's northern quarantine camp, a disused construction workers' hostel outside Darwin, the rooms are basic and the food is, well, institutional. But the fresh air, eucalyptus trees, blue skies and wind on your skin are sources of joy.

Native green parrots chirrup as they swoop by. Geckos cling to the veranda ceiling. The blinding sun reminds you that you are home. — Dixon

No visitors, no toys, no care-packages, round the clock confinement, and an ever-present police force—one wonders the point of it all if it is not an exercise in totalitarianism. According to Washington Post correspondent, Robyn Dixon, who was forced to stay there, "the feeling is part trailer camp, part hospital, part prison". At least the good officials there provide propaganda on how to maintain insanity during your internment: — NOS4A2

Kids under 12 do not have to quarantaine, so the "no toys" doesn't seem like a huge problem but is in any case not true because only balls, skateboards and swimming and playing in drains during rain are prohibited.

And some rules are not representative for all the quarantine facilities in Australia:

My donga faced a vacant lot with bark chips and trees. People opposite on shady south-facing balconies sat out all day and did morning workouts with dancing and burpees. My north-facing balcony was blasted by the sun, and I had to cover the metal chair with a towel. But it was wonderful after sundown, when the block’s yellow lights blinked on.

Someone would strum on a guitar nearby. Another person put up solar fairy lights. A couple tiptoed to put their baby down to sleep in the next room. Someone sat smoking on the veranda.

The alcohol ban applies only to Howard Springs residents. In Sydney hotels, quarantining guests can order care packages, restaurant deliveries and up to a bottle of wine each a day.

But I did not miss wine, getting through the slow, hot days. The fresh air and sunshine helped. So did the Vegemite. — Dixon

But as usual, you're not saying anything just trolling for a reaction. What should people do when they've been in close contact with a Covid-positive person according to you?

You obviously don't need to commit a crime to be sequestered. We also lock up crazy people when they haven't committed a crime. And in this case, being in close contact with a covid-positive person means you can become a vector for transmission as it takes time before viral load is sufficient to be picked up by a PCR test. About 24 hours before a PCR test is positive, you can transmit the virus. In Australia they've opted to quarantaine such people in separate facilities to ensure the disease doesn't spread any further. By comparison, in the Netherlands you're supposed to self-quarantine for five days after the last close contact with a Covid-positive person.

You’re either a “vector of transmission” or not. You don’t jail people who cannot spread the virus. If you don’t know whether they can spread the virus or not, you figure it out.

A frightening place? Sure. That's because you're apparently a pussy and your confirmation bias doesn't allow you to quote the upside of the experience. So let me:

Aah yes, hearing birds and smelling eucalyptus trees are the upsides to being interned in a camp, confined to a small building. Are you serious?

Kids under 12 do not have to quarantaine, so the "no toys" doesn't seem like a huge problem but is in any case not true because only balls, skateboards and swimming and playing in drains during rain are prohibited.

The following are not permitted in either quarantine facility;

Toys or recreational items such as swimming pools (plastic or inflatable), scooters, skateboards, bikes, balls and roller blades. These will be stored until your exit.

First off, as expected you didn't answer the question.

You’re either a “vector of transmission” or not. You don’t jail people who cannot spread the virus. If you don’t know whether they can spread the virus or not, you figure it out. — NOS4A2

This is plain wrong. First, there's a probability of being a vector from the moment you've been in contact as you might develop the disease. Since you can be infectious before it shows up on the PCR test or before you show symptoms, you take precautions to go into quarantine.

Second, people aren't jailed, they're put into quarantine.

If you don't know whether they can spread the virus because the tests available aren't sensitive enough from the earliest onset of being infectious, it's totally reasonable to take precautionary measures. Much like wearing a seatbelt is a precautionary measure as there's a possibility you cause an accident.

Aah yes, hearing birds and smelling eucalyptus trees are the upsides to being interned in a camp, confined to a small building. Are you serious? — NOS4A2

The writer certainly was. You just went out of your way to highlight everything you find disagreeable with it, misrepresenting both the tone and conclusion of it to suit your own agenda.

Toys or recreational items such as swimming pools (plastic or inflatable), scooters, skateboards, bikes, balls and roller blades. These will be stored until your exit. — NOS4A2

As I said. All the outdoorsy stuff for obvious reasons. You're not supposed to leave the veranda or room. But your Nintendo Switch, books, puzzles, etc. are all ok. Also if you quote, it's common decency to attribute it to the source.

To repeat: What should people do when they've been in close contact with a Covid-positive person according to you?

As usual you're just acting like a whiny little bitch without providing solutions.

Denying fundamental rights on a hunch is ludicrous. The just and ethical thing to do would be to fix the testing, not toss them in an internment camp just in case.

Sure, the fact that someone can hear birds and see the sun is nice, but it isn’t much a consolation when you are confined against your will.

As for the toys, fair enough—even though it says toys are prohibited, gaming systems, puzzles and cellphones could be considered toys—but that wasn’t the only thing I listed.

I already did link to the Centre for National Resilience in my first post. It was my mistake to think you had read it.

If people are in contact with a Covid-positive person they should isolate, stay away from others, and get tested as much as possible.

Denying fundamental rights on a hunch is ludicrous. The just and ethical thing to do would be to fix the testing, not toss them in an internment camp just in case. — NOS4A2

It's not a hunch. You already stated people should isolate and get tested regularly. The kids escaping is an obvious example that quarantine centers are a good idea. If they flaunt the rules to escape, you know they would flaunt the rules if they weren't enforced as well. So their escape is actually proof of the necessity to have mandatory quarantine. And the second sentence is idiotic on so many levels. You're incapable in weighing interests, apparently burdened by absolutism in every area. It's precisely because individuals have proven to be irresponsible with regard to health guidelines that stricter measures became necessary.

Sure, the fact that someone can hear birds and see the sun is nice, but it isn’t much a consolation when you are confined against your will. — NOS4A2

Unlike you, most people are perfectly capable of realising what they are doing is to protect others and, despite not liking quarantine itself, are happy to make that sacrifice. Their experience will therefore be different than for immoral egoist like you.

As for the toys, fair enough—even though it says toys are prohibited, gaming systems, puzzles and cellphones could be considered toys—but that wasn’t the only thing I listed. — NOS4A2

Yeah, the no visitors was gold. Even in your own answer people should isolate, which means no visitors. So exactly zero change from what you think people should do. Care packages is quarantine location dependent as is alcohol, although it is generally limited. Such limitations seem for obvious reasons.

I already did link to the Centre for National Resilience in my first post. It was my mistake to think you had read it. — NOS4A2

Hey Sherlock, one guess as to how I know you were literally quoting? Idiot. But it's typical of your low brow morality to not properly attribute quotes (or even put it in quotation marks) or to selectively quote to suit your narrow worldview. It's a rather Orwellian turn to read only negativity in an article that is predominantly positive about the quarantine experience.

If people are in contact with a Covid-positive person they should isolate, stay away from others, and get tested as much as possible. — NOS4A2

Yes they should. And since too many people don't do that apparently it has to be enforced to protect other people.

As I expected, vaccination is made a must legally in countries without the desired group immunity (about 70%). How does this relate to the human, basic right to be the master of your own body? Germany starts next year, Austria and Greece are there. Giving a money fine is supposed to do the trick. Like prison in the Philippines. What if I take them both for granted? Will they make me a tramp (I can't pay the fines)? Or if I pay the fine, will the reaction get more severe? Higher fines? Will I be put in jail, or even in a mental institution, where it's easy to vaccinate me? What if I refuse, no matter how selfish that might be?

I believe its overstepping the bounds of what should be permissible for governments to mandate. Vaccines are not 100% safe and unless you can guarantee that you shouldn't be forcing people to take it. Bodily integrity is a whole step up from curfews and movement restrictions.

I have similar problems with the so-called 2g policy, which in the Netherlands means you can only get access to all sorts of places if you have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid. That's effectively indirect coercion on people to get vaccinated.

Let's hope the Omicron version is as light as it seems and darwinism will have done its job by developing a highly infectious but non-lethal strain which is a win - win for both the virus and us.

Vaccines are not 100% safe and unless you can guarantee that you shouldn't be forcing people to take it. — Benkei

Seat belts and helmets are not 100% effective. In fact, they can actually result in worse harm, and death, depending upon the physics of an accident. Nevertheless, if one chooses to exercise the privilege of driving on society's streets in some jurisdictions, they must wear a seat belt and/or a helmet. This is done simply to keep insurance premiums down. The vaccine is intended to save lives.

Here is why the vaccine is so important: The burden of proof in an allegation of negligent homicide or reckless endangerment is upon the state or the plaintiff. If a person gets Covid 19 and gets sick or dies, it is *almost* impossible to prove that any particular person was the source of their illness or death. Individuals who refuse to take steps to prevent harming others are relying upon this burden to remain step-free.

If, in a utopian dream world, we could prove that X was the source, then we have protocols in place to stop the spread. People who harm or kill others can be sued until they are destitute, leaving themselves and their families penniless because they refused to take reasonable steps to protect others. Or, they could be imprisoned. But we don't live in utopia, so the the state kindly asks people to distance, mask and vax. The requests and the impositions continue to ratchet-up as time goes on and people refuse.

Individuals want to place the burden of proof where it already lies: "Prove it was me or I'm not going to refrain from exercising privilege." However, because it is a privilege, and not a right, the state is on sound moral ground in denying access to privilege to any who don't want to wear the seat belt, helmet, or vax. This has been argued and litigated for a hundred years and found lawful and moral. The state is NOT forcing anyone to vax. It's just that you can't use our toys on our field if you won't play by our rules.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going down the rabbit hole of arguing efficacy. I'm just arguing that the state is on sound legal and moral grounds taking the least-intrusive route available in pursuit of a compelling state interest to protect the health and welfare of it's citizens.

Seat belts and helmets are not 100% effective. In fact, they can actually result in worse harm, and death, depending upon the physics of an accident. — James Riley

That's neither here nor there because it doesn't affect bodily integrity.

That's neither here nor there because it doesn't affect bodily integrity. — Benkei

Sure it does. If your neck breaks in a car accident, I'd say your bodily integrity had been ruined. A needle in the arm, not so much.

Please continue to demonstrate you don't know about human rights. The floor is yours.

Please continue to demonstrate you don't know about human rights. The floor is yours. — Benkei

I already taught you that I have a right to not have my bodily integrity violated by your disease. I taught you that a burden which is upon me cannot be proven. I taught you that society has thus shifted that burden to you. But nice try, arguing that I don't know about human rights when it is human rights the state is trying to protect, in accord with it's very reason for being. I think you need to go back to school and learn about human rights.

Your irrelevant and artificial distinction between "in" and "on" is, as you would say, "neither here nor there." If I punch you in the face I have not pierced your precious skin, but I have indeed violated your bodily integrity. So too the seat belt or helmet that breaks your neck because it does not meet your arbitrary and capricious 100% standard.

Look at the fantasies you have to tell yourself to justify all this. “You know these kids would flaunt the rules! Their escape is proof of the necessity of mandatory quarantine! The kids escaping is an obvious example that quarantine centers are a good idea!” You present a counterfactual and use weasel words to prove the necessity of authoritarian measures. No concern, no pros and cons, no rights-based approach, just counterfactuals and weasel words.

You say there is no effective difference between my normative claim “people should isolate” and “the government shouldn’t put people in internment camps”, as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. I’m some sort of hypocrite for making too big a fuss because government internment is no different than staying home.

No matter. Just as the Centre for National Resilience let’s us know that people should not look at their confinement like prison, but as a moment to reflect and learn about themselves, Benkei says we should look at it like a sacrifice and pat ourselves on the back for being good team players.

What is this but the most laughable, slimiest sort of propaganda?

I believe its overstepping the bounds of what should be permissible for governments to mandate. Vaccines are not 100% safe and unless you can guarantee that you shouldn't be forcing people to take it. — Benkei

It's still permissible to mandate less than safe medications, under the proviso that the situation is so dire that it warrants such a measure. Of course then the government would need to be consistent, and declare a state of emergency, enforce martial law and a lockdown that would epidemiologically actually be effective (unlike the ones we've had so far).

So why doesn't the government do that?

For one, as long as it can blame the lack of efficacy of the vaccines and their dangerous side effects on people, there is no incentive to stop. And they sure can blame the people.

as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. — NOS4A2

Of course they are.

Moreover, there is pressure from employers -- "Come to work, or go to quarantine and lose your job!"

The assumption that no individuals privately and voluntarily respond to risks is the greatest friend to authoritarianism during the pandemic. One wonders if they factored individual risk-mitigation into any of their models at all.

"Act in bad faith and blame others! appears to be the motto of many individuals and institutions, and not just in this covid situation.

as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. — NOS4A2

I think people are perfectly capable of isolating and staying away from others without government internment.

The problem is those who don't do what they are capable of doing.

Rather than blame those who refuse to do what they are capable of doing, we blame government for internment in response to the failure of some to do what they are capable of doing. Even those who do isolate and stay away from others get rolled up because of those who don't. Not because of government, but because of those who don't do what they are capable of doing.

While government actions may become more draconian over time, just imagine what will happen if government fails: How about the people start holding a blanket party for those who bring the shit down on everyone else? I don't ascribe to that, early on, but it can be an inevitable result.

Where government has this impossible task of protecting individual liberties while protecting the health and welfare of individuals so they can exercise their individual liberties, groups of individuals may step in to get the job done. At that point, internments camps will look like a welcome alternative.

I can't overstate the leniency this all started out with. Is there a progression to harsher and harsher measures? Yes. But we have met the enemy and he is us. (Pogo?). We bring this upon ourselves and government is the least of our worries. Collective, non-governmental action is the worst case scenario. And guess what? You still have that "collective" that is the enemy of individualism. Personally, I'd rather have government hang me after due process of law than a bunch of assholes do it without any process at all. You might argue that it doesn't matter, because you are still hung. But the fact we have civil society demonstrates the difference. If it wasn't a good thing, we would have purged it long ago.

Government should be held to a higher standard. And it is.

The desire to blame someone is strong. These days, China is the usual suspect for everything bad, so let's blame China ... — baker

I think the usual suspect for everything bad these days is the West. Slavery, genocide, global warming, you name it, it's all the fault of the West.

Like the original sin of the Bible, being a Westerner is bad by definition. Tainted, marked, and damned for ever ....

But I didn't know that subscribing to Buddhism entails standing up for the Chinese Communist Party.

Would you stand up for Putin, too? Or only for Xi?

And what about Tibet?

I don’t see how I can blame someone else for the actions of some government official. The people who have shuttered my livelihood, restricted my movement, banned friends and family from society, banned funerals, weddings, and religious gatherings, are not those who flout state-sanctioned medical advise.

But that’s the way collectivism works in a nutshell. The actions of one individual makes the rest guilty by association. Rather than consider things on a case-by-case, individual basis, lazy collectivist solutions come to the fore. This is not because they are right or more just, but because they are easier and involve less effort.

Principles like due process were devised to protect the individual from the state. It is because of the state’s malfeasances that it exists. It wouldn’t exist, in the Magna Carta or the American constitution, for example, if the state had its way. The protections of these individual rights are the proper sphere of government, in my opinion, but beyond that it should not go. But, as you mention, they have taken on collectivist tasks like providing health and welfare, so rights be damned.

Maybe read some actual case law instead of sharing your worthless opinion.

No concern, no pros and cons, no rights-based approach, just counterfactuals and weasel words. — NOS4A2

The right based approach is something we already went over when I quoted the typically accepted limitations to human rights. The general welfare of society is a permitted ground to limit individual right and the weighing of interests is performed at that stage. The fact they escaped quarantine certainly is adequate indication that they would flaunt mere guidelines. Only an idiot cannot add two and two together.

You say there is no effective difference between my normative claim “people should isolate” and “the government shouldn’t put people in internment camps”, as if people are unable to isolate and stay away from others without government internment. I’m some sort of hypocrite for making too big a fuss because government internment is no different than staying home. — NOS4A2

I didn't say any such thing, I said complaining about no visitors when you think they shouldn't have any visitors is an idiotic argument to make.

Here's another question for you, since it's clear not enough people will distance our take a vaccination, how do you propose to deal with the fall out that causes? Eg. overrun healthcare systems.

Maybe read some actual case law instead of sharing your worthless opinion. — Benkei

Maybe cite some actual case law proving my opinion is worthless.

P.S. Belay my last. Better yet, prove you can think on your own two feet.

I don’t see how I can blame someone else for the actions of some government official. — NOS4A2

So if a cop pulls you over for going 70 in a 30 you blame the cop instead of all the individuals who gave rise to the 30?

But that’s the way collectivism works in a nutshell. The actions of one individual makes the rest guilty by association. — NOS4A2

Indeed. When individuals fail to regulate themselves, the collective will do that for them.

Rather than consider things on a case-by-case — NOS4A2

We actually do that in criminal law. But individuals deprive the state of the ability to consider typhoid Mary's on a case-by-case basis.

This is not because they are right or more just, but because they are easier and involve less effort. — NOS4A2

Bingo! Easier and less effort is what individualist fund the state for.

Principles like due process were devised to protect the individual from the state. It is because of the state’s malfeasances that it exists. — NOS4A2

Bingo!

It wouldn’t exist, in the Magna Carta or the American constitution, for example, if the state had its way. — NOS4A2

Wrong. That is the state.

The protections of these individual rights are the proper sphere of government, in my opinion, but beyond that it should not go. — NOS4A2

The state IS protecting individual rights when it protects the right of individuals to be free from the imposition of other individuals.

But, as you mention, they have taken on collectivist tasks like providing health and welfare, so rights be damned. — NOS4A2

Those collectivists task or protecting the health and welfare (also in the organic documents that you exalt for protecting individual liberties) are specifically designed to protect individual liberties.

Squote="Benkei;627691"]I have similar problems with the so-called 2g policy, which in the Netherlands means you e?can only get access to all sorts of places if you have been vaccinated or recently recovered from Covid. That's oikeffectively indirect coercion on people to get vaccinated[/quote]

Luckily I don't care for access but you are absolutely right. I can't stand de Jong making his propaganda for the vaccine. Dansen na Jansen... The vaccine is quite unnatural stuff (based not on a weakened variant but on a spike of the original), and it appears now that a lot of vaxed people still get sick. Will vaccination truly reduce the number of viruses? Won't the immune system feel fooled by a single spike? Why shouldn't I be able to trust on my own defense system. Okay, the sick people occupy hospital beds. But if the vaccinated are so sure the vaccine protects, why pushing others to be vaccinated too? Vaccines ruin your own defense. At least, the unnatural ones. They might just stimulate it but if you trick it, who knows what happens? Maybe you get less defense for other diseases. On top, even if I get COVID19, I won't ask for a hospital bed.

Simmer down please.

Roger that.

I would say that, sometimes, one has to be pragmatic rather than principled. Maybe lockdowns and the like do deprive people of their rights. But they’re still practical.

Our current justice system sometimes allows for the guilty to go free and sometimes convicts the innocent. These are simply unavoidable evils, and in lieu of a more practical alternative, is something we just have to accept. And the same is true of our COVID regulations.

I think the usual suspect for everything bad these days is the West. Slavery, genocide, global warming, you name it, it's all the fault of the West.

Like the original sin of the Bible, being a Westerner is bad by definition. Tainted, marked, and damned for ever .... — Apollodorus

Not sure where this is coming from.

But I didn't know that subscribing to Buddhism entails standing up for the Chinese Communist Party.

Or this.

Would you stand up for Putin, too? Or only for Xi?

And what about Tibet?

Oh, come on. What's the matter?

I don't think of myself as a Buddhist, and I have many problems with Buddhism. But maybe you guys will actually make me into one.

and it appears now that a lot of vaxed people still get sick. — Cartuna

Yes. The current numbers for Slovenia are:
40 % of those hospitalized for covid are vaccinated
20 % of those needing intensive care are vaccinated