International travel ban: Australia's borders closed until 2021?

Yes! You speak so much sense (in both your comments). I wish those in charge thought like you. We cannot sit and wait, shut off, as it will only increase the fear and isolation.

Mandatory testing around the globe should be before passenger boards plane not on arrival.

covo95, you obviously haven't skied in USA. 10 times better than anything in Japan & much better value.

We've just booked 2 weeks in Copper Mt Colorado in January. only had to put down $40 u.s. deposit. On snow accommodation was $250 au. a night. We just went for 3 star, small apartment, but only 200m from lifts, which are 6 or 8 person. Friends who've skied Whistler, Aspen, Vail & Steamboat say it's better than those, but without crowds. Have only skied 1 day there 5 years ago, when in Denver on business. For this trip, lift tickets only $60 au a day for adults with kids free (up to 4 per adult). Not a bad way to ski, without spending a bucket load of cash.

We also got $999 return fares to LAX departing January 4, with only $99 deposit, with rest due 90 days prior. We can even upgrade straight to business class, by bidding online for each sector. No min fare required.

We got frequent flyer seats LAX to Colorado which includes checked bags & Hertz 4wd from airport to resort for $140 au, each way.

Was wondering if these were corona prices, but agent said only the airfares were corona based prices.

I really don't believe that to be "COVID free" is a sustainable goal in the short term. Until a vaccine has been rolled out and administered to everyone, cases will lurk, especially in a country as big as Australia. Therefore, to remain so focused on being 100% free of it creates unrealistic expectations, and which leads to extreme reactions when inevitably cases are found - on again off again lockdowns are going to be far more damaging to economic confidence. This is something we need to learn to live with by managing it, taking precautions, and not allowing to shut things down completely.

Well said AussieInLondon. Any time I voice similar concerns, some people look at me as if I want them to contact the virus and die! With simple precautions we can manage this. We will never eliminate it. Flu infects close to 1 billion (not an error) people each year and kills half a million each year. Yet we have never seen a reaction to the flu like this current reaction. The increase of media and social media with 24 hour constant news makes reactions like this more likely to get worse. Paranoia is rampant. We need cool heads and simple precautions to manage it all.

Good point Richard

Influenza associated deaths last year in Australia was over 4000 people, yet the hype around COVID-19 has stopped our economy and sent thousands of businesses to the wall. No doubt that the quick and excellent response from the Australian government initially has slowed the spread, but the economy needs to open up and give the country a chance to recover.

AussieinLondon, mandatory vaccines? I don't think so. Sounds like a mass experiment to me.

No-one is suggesting mandatory vaccines. We haven't got anywhere near having a vaccine at all.

RBC, actually many people including that poster ARE advocating mandatory vaccines for travel. I've known about this plan for several years, and this is the perfect pretext to implement them. Even Bill Gates has said: in the future, to get on a plane you'll need to be vaccinated.

Vaccination requirement for travel are already in place, notably yellow fever. Vaccination as a condition for travel is completely different from mandatory vaccination.

There's a lot of unscientific anti-vaxxer mentality hanging around the edges of this discussion.

RBC, believing that vaccines saved the world is itself a delusion. It's all faith based. Nothing scientific about injecting aluminium adjuvants and mercury. Get educated instead of spouting off propaganda. Same to you AussieInLondon. You've definitely drunk the kool aid.

Oh dear.

@thefreqflyer I wasn't advocating mandatory vaccines, merely stating that until there is a vaccine and it is administered widely, there can't be certainty that Covid is eliminated. And even then, it's likely that you'd need to get the vaccination annually, like with the flu.

I also agree with RBC that mandatory vaccines requirements already exist re other diseases, so this antivax / Bill Gates conspiracy theory nonsense is just that, nonsense.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it comes from the horses mouth. Clearly you've never watched a video of Bill Gates speaking. A guy with no medical qualifications who thinks he can tell us what to do.

RBC, you obviously don't know the meaning of mandatory: as in compulsory. IF a covid and/or a list of other vaccines are required to get on a plane, that implies they are MANDATORY for the purposes of travel, with no opt outs available.

The yellow fever and MMR vaccination requirements applying to various countries are very specific depending on your passport nationality (Africans are often singled out at Asian airports to show a yellow fever certificate) or where your journey originates (again, Africa/Latin America). For MMR, this applies to several Pacific islander nations since 2019.

might never be a vaccine. Plenty of viruses that have been around for decades have no vaccine. The only people dying are unhealthy, like old people. Open all borders now, or there will soon be civil war & pollies will be in firing line for stuffing things up so badly for what ?

So you're quite comfortable killing off the old people are you? Old age is coming to you...fast, see if you change your mind then!

Supertech, that is such a crass thing to say. In no way was regular flyer advocating that! Comments such as yours do not help the discussion on the best way through this for everyone. They are just inflammatory. Older people or those with underlying health conditions should take more precautions as they see fit but not blanket impositions which adversely impact all those who wish to live life fully.

Read the evidence. People who recover are often severely affected. It's not 'just' the old and unhealthy.

regular flyer, great to see a rational voice on here for a change.

It's not a unique position. There are many other places that have done very well.

Our government's strategy of waiting for a vaccine is fundamentally flawed. To date there has not been a single successful coronavirus vaccine developed. They tried and failed for MERS-CoV. They tried for SARS, and developed a vaccine which INCREASED mortality. Waiting for a vaccine is simply not a strategy. They need to concentrate on owning the situation and developing viable and practical public health measures to combat viral spread whilst allowing a modicum of normal life to continue. Simply pulling up the drawbridge and waiting for something that may never happen is ridiculous and likely to do more harm than good both to public health and the economy in the medium to long term. The concept of a future vaccine needs to be treated as a potential bonus, not the lynchpin of a national "strategy".

@GreenFlagon

"Our government's strategy of waiting for a vaccine is fundamentally flawed.... The concept of a future vaccine needs to be treated as a potential bonus, not the lynchpin of a national "strategy"."

With respect, I think you may have a flawed understanding of the govt strategy. My inference is that they're not waiting for a vaccine. They're waiting for sufficient clinical ability to treat COVID with an very high success rate among critical patients and for medication to be developed to halt COVID in its track during the early stages.

These things are far less unattainable, in the short term, than a vaccine.

The problem is only, in part, lack of a vaccine. The reason COVID-19 is so dangerous is because a lack of clinical knowledge and treatment. If almost everybody in an at-risk category who got COVID neither died nor ended up in ICU, then it wouldn't be unduly dangerous.

Up until the other week, there wasn't much in the way of knowledge on how to treat COVID. Next to nothing in the way of medication (although Remdesivir and others are being trialled). Now they have used an anti-inflammatory called Dexamethosone which is very helpful for seriously-ill patients. It cut fatality rates by one-third. With effective antiviral treatment for )both critically-ill and mild) patients, then society will be able to go back to some kind of normality.

"They tried for SARS, and developed a vaccine which INCREASED mortality."

Actually, Nikolai Petrovsky's team were making great progress in creating a SARS vaccine. But it went away and the US cut their funding. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

There is an incubation period of up to 14 days. The testing will not detect the virus while it is incubating.

But then what is the purpose of a 14 day quarantine, either, if you have just arrived on an airplane and it might be incubating for your entire quarantine?

I don't disagree with your point, I just think that with a 40% false negative provided up to 4 days after exposure, there are other ways of mitigating risk via testing than creating bubbles that are based on statistical generalities...

PCR test detects majority of cases pretty early in the cycle - by day 2 or 3 - so are very useful in significantly reducing risk. Already becoming fairly wide practice - e.g. Iceland - pay for PCR on arrival and receive results via SMS in a few hours; Austria - PCR on arrival; Tahiti - PCR prior to departure etc. Something of a moral dilemma in some cases though as there is a global shortage of PCR test kits meaning some poorer countries may be crowded out if travel results in a huge increase in testing.

@noopr

I can't post links but PCR are far from flawless in real-world conditions. In theory, fantastically accurate. In practice, so many things go wrong as a result of ''preanalytical and analytical factors''. There's an article by Maureen Ferran in the Conversation, entitled "Coronavirus Tests are pretty accurate but far from perfect" from 6 May, 2020.

She draws on quite a bit of research. She writes ''...clinical sensitivity of RT-PCR tests ranges from 66% to 80%. This means nearly one in three infected people who are tested will receive false negative results''.

So PCRs are very helpful for diagnosis but not where they need to be if you're committed to keeping COVID out. It all depends on the aims of the government, I guess.

Agree with you that it creates a moral dilemma if rich countries have all the testing kits. I fear a similar thing will happen with the vaccine if/when it comes.

COVID is on average 10 times more deadly than pandemic influenza. In the elderly, up to 100 times more deadly.

and with a higher reproductive rate also spreads through the community much more rapidly than the flu

Flu for the elderly is just as dangerous. The big difference is that the categorisation of death is not the flu but their underlying health condition they had when also contracting the flu which pushed them to their demise. With Covid, the underlying health condition is not used as the reason for death in many cases. I have first hand knowledge and experience with both sides of this with relatives in the UK. A nursing home had 9 deaths in just under three weeks because of a flu epidemic a few years back. 1 out of the 9 was classified as flu. The actual number was 9 out of 9. In the last few months a very ill relative who had not long to live had Covid attributed to their death. Wrong. They just happened to have it when they died. It did not kill them.

in australia, it's much more dangerous driving. Are we going to reduce speed limits to 50kph on highways ?

@regular flyer

"in australia, it's much more dangerous driving. Are we going to reduce speed limits to 50kph on highways ?"

Sorry but this is too absurd for words. It's only more dangerous to drive (in Australia) as a result of plenty of success in eliminating community transmission of COVID.

You're also culpable of the false equivalence fallacy. The pattern is that countries with high incidence of COVID have much higher CFR (e.g. the UK). The COVID mortality rate varies between 1-15% in countries that have been badly hit.

If one out of a hundred people driving at 100km/h on the highway their life, of course the speed limit would be reduced. Never mind fifteen out of a hundred people.

regular flyer, excellent point. Knowing the nanny state mentality of Australian governments, which has the world's strictest traffic laws, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually reduce speed limits to ridiculously low levels on highways as a pretext to bring down an already low road toll.

Joe, you are 100% correct!

Because Singapore understands the cases it has. Once the worker dormitories are under control, Singapore has infection rates very low and similar to Taiwan and Hong Kong.

And HK!!

Richard W, no, it's because Singapore and Australia have a strange brotherly love for each other.

Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan have far fewer cases so if this virus is as deadly as is being claimed, Singapore should be out for some time. Besides, what's so important about Singapore? It's a tiny country mostly services based economy. Corporate travel to that country is a waste of time. Just hold meetings on Zoom or Skype.

I am a UK and Australian citizen. It is not correct to stop me from leaving the country if I choose to do so. I accept any cost for tests or quarantine and will isolate as needed upon return but to actually stop me is wrong.

Im the same position , im livid that we are being imprisoned here , Im sure this is not lawful and against civil/human rights.

I am prepared to stand up against this and start a petition, anything !

Letmeout - I have already written to my MP but it takes a lot more than a lone voice.

I think I will do the same Richard W.

Lets start a movement !

I have written to my local MP and many other politicians,of course no responses, its also impossible to get through to the home office .

My son is a paramedic for London Ambulance service I too have first hand knowledge of the false number of deaths they are relating to Covid19.

More to the point though , people with dual citizenship cannot and should not be prohibited from LEAVING !

@Letmeout

"Im sure this is not lawful and against civil/human rights...More to the point though , people with dual citizenship cannot and should not be prohibited from LEAVING !"

Then you're mistaken. It's perfectly lawful. There's no right, in Commonwealth law, to leave the country (dual citizen or otherwise).

Moreover, the travel ban (as a policy) doesn't breach human rights laws/standards. The relevant treaty is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While the ICCPR does enshrine the right to leave one's own country, it then adds a provision giving the state the ability to restrict this right during a public health emergency, among other things. A pandemic activates that provision and means that the state can stop its citizens (even those with multiple citizenships) from leaving the country without violating human rights, prima facie.

But only Australia, in the world of western democracies, is actually preventing their citizens from leaving the country without getting permission from the Central Committee...I mean, the Politburo....I mean...who?

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that banning your own citizens from leaving their country is helpful, when you have an incoming ban, a quarantine for those exempted, and minimal air travel as it is, due to restrictions worldwide. It is an infringement of civil liberties, disguised as science.

@nyjoe4

"There is no scientific evidence to suggest that banning your own citizens from leaving their country is helpful, when you have an incoming ban, a quarantine for those exempted, and minimal air travel as it is, due to restrictions worldwide. It is an infringement of civil liberties, disguised as science."

The question was about the lawfulness of the ban and whether it complies with international human rights treaties. Perfectly lawful and in compliance with the ICCPR. It restricts civil liberties... but in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of the ICCPR.

As for the scientific justification... I'm not arguing that point. I agree 100% with the quarantining of inbound passengers. I think the ideal situation would be one whereby you must either secure an exemption or pay a bond, in advance, for the cost of your quarantining.

There are people who, rightly, point out that even quarantining brings the risk of reintroducing COVID. As happened with a couple of hotel workers. So I can perceive a scientific justification. Imo, that's being overzealous, though.

But, aside from this, I'm happy with how Australia has handled COVID, overall. And this travel ban, however controversial, doesn't constitute a violation of human rights, prima facie.

The actual infringement of civil liberties, at the hands of the Australian state, are concentrated on Nauru, Manus Island and in a specific courtroom in Canberra behind closed doors.

you can get on a flight to UK anytime. Just state a reason. Home quarantine in UK is not even being enforced.

Not quite true sadly or I would be gone ! Need a letter of exemption with limited reasons for wanting to leave, apparently they refuse most, I know this from contact with people that have tried or are in the process of trying to be released ! More to the point is the fact that we are being told we cannot leave , even with passport from home Country . Do look up other Countries in the World that currently have restrictions on their residents leaving its quite interesting, North Korea being one of them.

Welcome to the Hotel California......

Chapter and verse. Unfortunately, lots of Australians revel in isolationism, in the idea of safety and protection from the outside, that bad things only happen in that mysterious and forbidding "overseas". The reaction to Covid plays perfectly into that narrative.

@AussieInLondon

"Unfortunately, lots of Australians revel in isolationism"

Yep. However, the traditional isolationists are advocating open borders. Pauline Hanson, the gold standard of Australian isolation and bogandom, wants open borders.

Whereas the majority of people who actually work in healthcare (not likely to be isolationist) want strict control over things until clinical knowledge exists to treat COVID effectively.

The problem is that there's very little knowledge in terms of how to treat this incredibly infectious virus. To reasonable people, it's got nothing to do with isolation or an inter-connected world. The whole world is at something of a standstill until the knowledge exists in how to treat COVID.

Murrayp - The best article written on this subject. I wish I could buy you a beer to show my agreement. Maybe you can run for PM please?

Couldn't agree more.

I couldn't agree more. I hardly know my own country anymore, we have become a nation of timid followers who believe whatever the fear mongering media is serving up.

Finally today, I am reading opinions which mirror my own. I was beginning to think I was alone !!

It is so refreshing and encouraging to read sentiments that reflect my own. Thank you.

@regular flyer

"The whole world should not have been locked down, only those with poor immune systems like elderly & others."

It simply doesn't work that way. Sweden is a case in point. It took the approach you're advocating and its elderly are paying the price. Who do you think cares for the elderly and immunocompromised? Other elderly and immunocompromised?

It's not possible to lock down just the elderly and immunocompromised while everybody else goes about business as usual. People in this situation need carers, who come into contact with the rest of the infectious masses. And the elderly in the Western World often live in care homes. So disease spreads like wildfire.

I recall in March or thereabouts, somebody, possibly an American virologist, responding to Sweden's ideas of protecting its elderly by saying - what are they going to do? Keep them in bubble wrap?

Fast forward several months and Sweden, with relatively low population density, has suffered nearly 500 deaths per million of its population. Its elderly population has been hit extremely hard. This is a tragedy. These are real people whose lives could have been saved.

Agree 100%

There are at least 2 testing procedures which could allow a person to travel when certified. Swop test as well as a Urine test to provide a 3 -4 week certificate. the chances to slip thru that Net would be very minimal and allows people who want to travel the freedom to do so to selected Countries. I would be more than prepared to obtain such a Certificate but we have politics with just blanket NO's.

melbelle, the bigger issue is WHICH countries will let Aussies in? The whole world is closed and starting next month, only a select few will open, the vast majority with VERY stringent criteria. I wouldn't dare travel overseas due to these circumstances. The "virus" hardly even registers on my consciousness. The travel restrictions/outright bans, totally unprecedented in history, are what concerns me. 500 years ago it was easier to travel abroad than it is now, barring the obvious lack of airlines, trains and cars of course. But unlike today, you could wonder into just about any country you wished.

@RBC

I know. It's kinda disconcerting. Then again, maybe, Australia has become a victim of success.

Before the restrictions were implemented, I recall it being predicted that if people start chucking tanties (what virus? Not even dangerous), that'd be a sign that it was working very well.

Policymaking during a pandemic is a thankless task. But at least deaths have been prevented.

RBC - you've got it the wrong way round. FOREIGNERS are BANNED from entering MOST countries right now. Check the rules. That's the main reason why travelling overseas at this time, is ill advised, if not IMPOSSIBLE. There are also NO flights. How is an Aussie going to get to Thailand? There are NO flights from Australia to Thailand right now. Even if there were, there is an entry ban on foreigners (except work permit holders and foreigners married to locals). Both categories, and even Thai citizens, need to seek approval before booking a flight through the Thai consulate/embassy. AND there is a MANDATORY 14 day quarantine on arrival.

NEARLY every other country, Vietnam, China, you name it, have similar rules in place. Foreigners CAN'T enter other countries right now.

Aussies can MAYBE reach the USA/Canada/New Zealand and Europe/UK depending on their circumstances and individual rules of these countries, but as far as I'm aware, even New Zealand isn't allowing Aussies, other than residents in.

No one cares about this "virus". What we're looking at are the travel bans in place. Realistically, unrestricted travel is NOT returning until October, or possibly next year at the earliest. A couple of months ago, I thought we'd be seeing a return to freedom of movement by around July. My prediction was a bit hasty. Now I can see this thing is being dragged out a lot longer than I had ever imagined. I wouldn't be surprised if international travel doesn't resume until 2022. And when it does, how does being tracked, having a swab test taken 5 times during your stay, immediately being bused to your hotel, not being allowed to roam freely around your destination country sound? Because that's exactly what many countries have envisioned, at least in the first stages, once they slowly start lifting their incoming travel bans.

I laugh at the naivety of some posters on here. You guys have no idea how much this "pandemic" will change the world forever. There is every chance, normal travel will NEVER get back to the way it was.

Numbers rising in Latin America, Africa, India, several southern states of the US, no evidence of herd immunity or of diminished contagiousness; new infections in China and Korea. We are in a slight trough thanks to the earlier lockdown.

I'm afraid that you are paranoid. This government has no interest in keeping the borders closed except in the interests of public health. To believe otherwise is to import U.S.- style anti-state paranoia.

Except that there's no evidence of a public health benefit by not allowing your citizens to leave the country, if you are requiring quarantine on entry. The only benefit is a public treasury one. If you believe otherwise....

And just what public treasury benefit are you referring to?

The one that means that the government - ie the taxpayer - is paying for the quarantine when you return. Let's be honest - the real reason that the government doesn't want to let you out is that they don't want to pay for your quarantine to come back in. That's not paranoia.

No, RBC, airbear raises a lot of valid points. You see the world in black and white. Myself and others like airbear use facts and rationality when we present our arguments.

Just to expand upon what airbear has written, indeed I know of few other countries that have prevented their citizens from leaving the country. That being said, some are refusing to even allow their own nationals to return at this time (I believe Vanuatu is one example), while others are letting in only their own citizens and diplomats in and NO foreigners, even those holding permanent residency (such as China) and later, also Thailand. The latter, after an approximate 6-8 week ban on all foreign arrivals started allowing work permit holders back in (theoretically, they were never banned, but due to the incoming flight ban, about the only work permit holders that could have made it back during April and May were those crossing a land border or arriving by private plane, since repatriation flights were only allowed to carry Thais at that time). Now permanent residency holders and foreigners with Thai families can return (but need to seek permission and make arrangements through the local embassy or consulate), while non-residents are still not allowed in.

And that's just one example. Vietnam is roughly the same, but even more stringent - family members of local citizens are still not allowed back at this time. Only certain categories of work permit holders can enter the country under strict conditions. Most other countries have some sort of ban on the entry of foreigners. As the EU starts lifting travel bans between member states, it's still unclear whether they are going to allow non-EU foreigners in and if they are, under what circumstances.

Unfortunately, I think we're heading into a far less free future. As the responses taken by various governments around the world have shown, never in human history have governments had this much control over their citizens and the enitre world at the same time. I am rather pessimistic about the world being able to get back to freedom of movement without pesky tracking devices, mandatory vaccines for travel, mandatory testing, mandatory mask wearing on board flights and in public spaces and the list goes on. Some of these are likely to be imposed and/or remain with us indefinitely when borders re-open.

Not sure why you think I see the world in black and white, nor why you think I am not using facts.

I haven't addressed the issue of which countries may be willing to let us in. That's a separate question, and I agree that it complicates the issue.

I think you are right that we are headed into an era of much greater restriction on travel -- less travel will be permitted and it will be both more expensive and more monitored. Where we differ, perhaps, is in how much this restriction is driven by the nature of the pandemic (my view) vs how much it is driven by state desire to control (the view of some others on this site).

@airbear

"Finally, since you brought it up again here, and many times in the other discussion, I just want to say that a) there is no country on the planet that at some time or other HASN'T violated so-called human rights. There are no saints. b) as for Manus Island etc.: since you are a stickler for referencing the various international treaties to which we are notionally bound (or not), please correct me if I'm wrong, but most/many current detainees had already landed in “safe” countries such as Indonesia, before attempting to come to Australia by illegal means. As I see it, their treaty rights expired once they set foot in the country of transit prior to attempting to come to Australia."

''So-called human rights'', huh? The mask slips. You've basically proved my guesswork to be correct. This paragraph suggests that your more concerned with unrestricted freedom to travel wherever you please than you are with actual violations of human rights.

You believe that the people who have to apply for an exemption to leave Australia are victims of human rights violations? However, in the same breath, you reckon that the people illegally interned on Manus Island and Nauru don't have human rights?

There's no such thing as ''illegal immigration'' and no such thing as ''illegal boats''. As per the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967), people have the right to make their way towards Australia, by vessel (illegal or otherwise), and to have their application processed. If they fit the criteria for the definition of ''refugee'', as per the aforementioned treaty, the state has an obligation to grant them asylum.

@airbear

"You can feel honoured that I did you the courtesy of actually printing out your response to me, so that I could read it more carefully & make notes in the margin. In the meantime, I read your response to @MikeAir, and admit to being very surprised that you claim to broadly agree with Locke and Mill, and have distrust the state. In which case, what on earth makes you so sure this travel ban is only temporary?"

Thanks. I'm honoured. Why am I sure the travel ban is only temporary? Cui bono?

You've hinted at something more sinister being behind the travel ban. Can you please elaborate?

What benefit does the state gain from having the travel ban in place a day longer than necessary? If you can suggest a compelling reason - I'm listening.

AFP raids of journalist offices - motive detected. Prosecution of intelligence officer whistleblower and their barrister (in closed courtroom) - motive detected. Metadata retention - motive detected. Keeping Australian citizens immured in Australia a day after COVID threat is, effectively, neutralised - NO motive detected.

It may astonish you that I subscribe to the views of John Locke and J.S. Mill. The fact of the matter is that the travel ban (with the option of exemptions) can be easily reconciled with both their views.

In On Liberty, Mill drew the distinction between ''harm'' and ''offence''. Where other individuals are harmed, the state can intervene. Have you not noticed that unchecked travel has does considerable ''harm'' to countless thousands of lives the world over. In Two Treatises of Government, Locke wrote that the most important role of the state is to protect (and not to infringe) the individual's ''natural rights'' of ''life, liberty, and property''). Here, the state is protecting the individual's right to ''life'' and, in so doing restricting the individual's ''liberty'' (remember, it was never ''absolute liberty'', as the individual forfeits certain aspects of ''absolute liberty'' in leaving the ''state of ''nature'', according to Locke).

So we need to ask ourselves - have individual's liberties been unduly restricted? Does Locke, or Mill, speak of unrestricted freedom of movement after submitting to the social contract? No (unless you can find evidence somewhere)

Moreover, Locke's ideas inform the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). They, for all intents and purpose, enshrine his theory of natural rights.

Does the travel ban, in and of itself, during a pandemic violate the ICCPR? No, it does not. Therefore, from a Lockean perspective, it's a nuisance but acceptable.

@airbear

"this business of making it as hard and nail biting as possible to wait for approval, let alone eventual refusal - all without any recourse - constitutes mental cruelty, which can be seen as a form or torture."

Not according to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), it doesn't.

In Article 1 of that treaty, it defines torture as

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions"

I think that the implementation of this policy has included distressing waits for some. Namely, those who genuinely need to go in a hurry who have been held hostage to bureaucratic incompetence and understaffing (nevertheless, the comments article would have us believe that most of those individuals have eventually gained their exemptions). But torture, it ain't.

I've heard that the attention to branch stacking in Victoria (which is immoral, but not actually a crime) is intended to deflect attention from the Libs' sports rorts and robodebt scandals, which actually are crimes.

Why isn't anybody looking at some real reason why the Victorian cases are keeping creeping around and now have more and more Clusters. The mishandling by the Vic Gov Health handling of the Cedar meat has been a disgrace. Victoria was doing very well prior that but since Cedar it continuously had clusters. Why would you have Worksafe doing such investigation to find reason for the Cedar outbreak, you engage them if a scapegoat is needed.

How does preventing Australians leaving Australia, and putting them into quarantine for two weeks when they return, add any risk to Australia? If we leave, we are unable to infect other Australians, and if we are sick when we return, we aren't allowed into public for two weeks anyway, or until we are cleared. Meanwhile, the mental health problems caused by trapping people here, away from loved ones overseas, or work, are being created, and also need to be dealt with. We need to follow NZ, and make it an advisory, and keep quarantine on return. I do not support open borders for tourism, in either direction, but leaving Australia, with a quarantine on return, doesn't put anyone on this island at risk.

@MissJacks: Australians can leave Australia with permission, e.g. to take up jobs elsewhere. This is happening all the time. The ban is intended to reduce the number of infected Australians coming back to this country. Repatriations are continuing -- thousands of Australians are returning, and some of them are infected. Here are the considerations:

• Quarantine is costly: do you want to make all Australians pay for the cost of quarantining people who have knowingly put themselves at risk? Or do you want to put the burden on the travellers, effectively making international travel the preserve of the very rich?
• Quarantine is still risky: quarantine hotels need cooks, cleaners, security staff etc. All these people are placed at risk of infection by their proximity to infected travellers. Those who do fall ill create a risk for health care workers.
• Quarantine is not a guarantee. The infectious period is highly variable -- we have had cases of infection after more than two weeks.
• Selfish and ignorant people break quarantine *all the time*, sometimes thinking that they are without symptoms so they can't be infectious, sometimes because they put what they identify as their own mental health ahead of the risk to the rest of us. The more people in quarantine, the greater the risk, the greater the need to turn quarantine into real detention.

Yes, mental health is an issue, but you have to set the mental health of those who are temporarily separated from loved ones against the mental health of those who lose their loved one to the infection and the mental health of those in Australia who worry for their own health and the health of others. I'd argue that the latter has higher priority.

The cost can (and is) being transferred to the travellers from July 1. Queensland has already released how much people will be charged, and it is up to individual states. I didn't think we are able to break the enforced quarantines, as they are mandated and monitored by the Border Force/government? Also, don't we have the testing capability to see if, on the 14th day, those who have been in quarantine, are infectious?

Queensland's $200 per day is a significantly subsidized charge. The other states have not yet announced any charges. Do you really think that the taxpayer should bear the cost of quarantine for people who deliberately out themselves in harm's way?

And supervision of quarantine has not been especially rigorous -- we've had cases of people breaking it.

Finally, as I said, testing is imperfect. There is a significant number of false negatives and false positives. It's not anyone's fault, just a reflection of the complexity of diagnosis. In any kind of quarantine regime, there will inevitably been leakage into the community, as we have seen.

No! I think the traveller should cover it. But it does make use of what would otherwise be empty hotels, and keep some people in jobs. Also, I don't think it is possible to keep a community completely free of a virus, any virus, and you also cannot keep a country completely shut off. I feel like the media has made people obsessed with the 0 cases. We have to be as careful as possible, and yes, nothing is perfect, but shutting off for years is also not the answer.

At the moment, the taxpayer carries a large part of the cost. The consequence of having the traveller pay full cost will be that international travel is restricted to the wealthy.

You are absolutely right that we won't be able to reduce infection to 0 and that in the long term we can't keep the country completely shut off from the rest of the world. Covid-19 will be part of our world for the rest of our lives (and there's a good chance that a lot of people in this discussion will die of it, later rather than sooner).

However, current policies have kept our infection rate very low, which is a good thing for the economy and for society. Short-term shutoff while the whole world works out how to deal with the disease is the most sensible policy. Some combination of vaccine, treatment and more effective test-and-trace may bring the disease under relative control. We are not there yet, and there is no reason to invite destructive infection into this country sooner than we have to.

"Australians can leave Australia with permission, e.g. to take up jobs elsewhere"

ONLY possible if the destination country doesn't impose a travel ban on incoming foreigners. Many countries are completely closed to foreigners. Having a job or even permanent residency in the country means nothing. China for instance, has been enforcing a COMPLETE travel ban on ALL foreign nationals except diplomats (as they're covered under the diplomatic treaty) from entering the country at this time.

If you lose your job as a result of the travel ban, that's just the way it is. China doesn't care or make allowances for foreigners under the current circumstances.

@MissJacks

Melbourne has had and continues to have many “returned traveller flights” from overseas where the travellers go straight to a “quarantine hotel”. Essentially they should quarantine for 14 days and then be allowed to leave quarantine if they test negative. One fairly large Covid-19 cluster is from security staff at one of these “quarantine hotels” that go home to their family's and potentially stand next to you at Coles or Woolworths or the local fish and chip shop, thus bringing Covid-19 from overseas into our community. How do we get around overseas travellers entering or returning to Australia, we'll that's beyond me.

Masks! Wearing masks can help prevent those who have been near any potential infection from spreading it. So the return travellers/those working with them, could wear them? Shutting off until there is a vaccine, which may never happen, is also not sustainable as the rest of the world figures out ways to live with it.

The unfortunate reality is that masks are uncomfortable and difficult to wear properly. This means that we cannot rely on recently arrived travellers to use them consistently. You can see from the discussion on this page how many people are grossly ignorant of the nature of the disease.

And in practical terms, shutting off while the rest of the world works out how to deal with it is exactly what we should be doing. It won't be forever, but the relatively minor inconvenience of stopping international travel is a small price to pay for community health.

It doesn't stop people from wearing them in Asian countries, or now through Europe, out of consideration for others. I would think a mild discomfort would be better than being shut off from the world, while also protecting people, if the health concerns were a real worry? How long do we have to be shut off for? Until there is a vaccine? Because it may not happen. The French PM said they need to act as if the virus is going nowhere, while learning to live with it, and to hope for a vaccine, but not depend on it. I don't see what we are doing, rather than just hoping one will come, and it is a frustration.

No-one believes that masks are sufficient, even if they are useful. We could move to a situation in which mask-wearing is compulsory for all, but many people would object strenuously. It's simply unrealistic to imagine that recently returned travellers would conscientiously wear a mask if they believe themselves to be low risk or if they see it as an infringement of their personal liberty. As evidence, see the posts on these pages.

'Learning to live with the virus' can mean two things. One is adapting social behaviour to minimize risk (no bars, no restaurants, no concerts, compulsory masks, compulsory 1.5 metres distance etc.); think about it - would you rather have that degree of restriction or a ban on international travel? The other is a callous 'let other people die from the virus', i.e. the ill, the diabetic, the elderly, those who actually have to work with people rather than socially isolating at home with a laptop and internet. Of course, there is a spectrum, we can relax restrictions to the extent that we are happy to let people die.

We have the opportunity to wait and watch, to learn the most effective practices from the rest of the world. Why would we throw that advantage away?

@RBC

I don't think the many of thousands of businesses that have gone broke or are on the verge of going broke would think as you put it” it's a relatively minor inconvenience”. This is real for millions of Australians, not just a “relatively minor inconvenience”.

I think @frequent flyer put it well: 'The only businesses dying are unhealthy'. Businesses collapse all the time, especially in the hospitality sector. The lives of people are much more important.

But we are talking here about the ban on Australians travelling abroad. The economic effect of the ban is inded relatiuvely minor.

But you're still going to have to wear masks. It's the science, comfortable or not.

Those cases in security guards have been officially attributed to the security staff failing to follow their own physical distancing procedures. It's a little harsh to blame it on the returned travellers. It's hardly their fault that the receiving staff failed to follow their own procedures.

It's not a matter of blame. It's a matter of what will happen. The invisible nature of the infection inevitably means that people will be careless, with serious consequences for the community.