I'd say you'd be a perfect candidate for home quarantine, but you didn't seem all that keen about affording me the same consideration:
well, it's not personal
@trevella . For me, it's pretty much as
@hb13 says below.
I'm not talking about the level of risk here, because I believe that can be managed well without the absolutely ridiculous caps we have in place. I'm asking the question: Why would you put in a blanket rule, for "health" reasons, and then break it?
In my opinion, there should be no exemptions or special treatment for "important" people, because the virus actually does not care that you are a diplomat, or a footy player, or a tennis or cricket player, a movie star or some other celebrity, or even that I am just a little person nobody. Given the right conditions, it will happily infect all of us on an equal opportunity basis. So, if it is a
health issue, then everyone should follow the same health rules, diplomats included. If there can be exemptions for some, then that just makes a nonsense of the whole thing. It becomes not a health issue at all but a privilege issue.
And that is just what I said in my original post that you quoted - that diplomat was excused from the onerous rules that applied at that time to everyone else and may have put others at risk by having special rules that meant they were free to do things that others were not. So I would happily afford you the consideration of home quarantine, as long as the same courtesy were made available for me. And of course it isn't - because, I say again, I am just a numpty nobody with no power to fight the unfairness of the variable rules.
Additionally, I believe that the government owes a high duty of care to quarantine guests because the government is mandating the quarantine, and removing all choice of hotel from the quarantine guest. There is ample legal precedent that a higher duty of care is owed to people in similar circumstances such as people in prisons, people in disability homes etc. If a person is forced to quarantine in a place not of their choosing, they should be able to be confident that they will not leave the quarantine in worse health than when they entered. There are now several examples of people who did not have COVID at entry catching COVID during quarantine, which is something that I do fear about enforced and no-choice of venue hotel quarantine.
So all up, I think we might be in basic agreement, that there could be a case for permitting home quarantine.
But maybe where we differ is that I say that if you offer or allow home quarantine for one, you need to allow it for all those who can meet sensible criteria based on relevant factors such as willingness to be supervised in the quarantine and suitable premises, rather than on their membership of a privileged class of people such as sporting superstars, celebrities and diplomats. And of course, our nanny state has already decided that none of us little people could be trusted to home quarantine, only the special ones, like footy players. My consistent opinions about their suitability and evidence of their (non) capacity to adhere to quarantine conditions can be seen in
my earlier thread about the special treatment offered to footballers.
, Vanuatu, - probably missed the relevant one.
.
according to Lancet with a success rate of 92%.
