Comment by conz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by conz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

throwawayfear,

I share legitimate concerns about the Australian federal government's moves in recent years which show a lurch towards the surveillance state and authoritarianism. The points you raise which are related to regulations surrounding the response to COVID are needless fear-mongering however.

Yes, the rights of the individual with respect to movement and to assembly are important. But, so are the rights of citizens to not be infected and be put at risk of hospitalisation and even death.

So, a (temporary) regulation to limit the spread of COVID by reducing the number of people you can have in your home is acceptable in the same way that drivers are forced to drive at 40km/h around schools and playgrounds.

The great majority of Australia's citizenry understands this trade-off, thus supports the (predominantly) state government efforts during this time of COVID. And this support has been shown to provide health dividends; which, astonishingly, even the anti-lockdown Murdoch press seems to be grudgingly accepting:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/cov...

Being in the middle of an epidemic changes the norms as far as regulations go, in much the same way that such norms are altered during times of war. Citizens know these changes are unpalatable, but also know the alternatives are worse.

EDIT: typo.

> The great majority of Australia's citizenry understands this trade-off, thus supports the (predominantly) state government efforts during this time of COVID.

Wow. Where to begin. Firstly I'm in Australian Lockdown Hell and I do not support the state government's efforts. Not one bit.

Victoria, day 226 of lockdown. It's 8pm and I need to visit supermarket before it closes due to curfew. Actually, it's too late.

Masks are required outside. Check-ins everywhere. Angry state authorities appear on the screen on my wall blaming and condemning the public for "visiting their families" or "watching the sunset" or other unforgivable immoral acts.

The faces on the screen threaten to restrict freedoms and enforce new rules that go beyond simple contact tracing. Vaccinated or not, I will not support proving I'm vaccinated every day. There's an assumption that everyone is "sick until proven healthy", or "untrustworthy until trusted", or a "dirty virus spreading threat until proven vaccinated which is a sterilizing bullet-proof shield".

The Australian capital ACT, just announced a 4 week lockdown because of 32 reported cases yesterday. The ACT has seen 3 deaths since the start of the pandemic. Three deaths.

Meanwhile, day 226 of lockdown in Victoria, and I can't drive more than 5 km. I could be fined $5,000 for visiting my family. My family can appear on my screen, however, and the conversation is not listened to by the authorities, only logged for now. The warrant-less monitoring comes later, the frequency of which depends on my use of phrases like "I feel like protesting against lockdowns" and so on.

This is Australia, 2021. It matters not that the masses are submissive to coercive control. They're being blackmailed. The "rewards" promised are only the things we already had, now taken away.

> ...acceptable in the same way that drivers are forced to drive at 40km/h around schools and playgrounds

The glaring flaw with analogies involving speeding drivers, is the speeding driver is always speeding by definition. The drunk driver is always drunk by definition. An unvaccinated person is not always infected or spreading the virus. And vaccinated people can still be infected and spread the virus too, which further derails the analogy: A sober driver cannot suddenly become unwillingly intoxicated in the way a vaccinated person can become infected. So please find a better analogy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com