Hotel Quarantine: COVID-19 emergency no excuse for mass rights violations
- Details
Although widely supported, hotel lockups may unravel and will not defeat the pandemic in the long run, argues Steve Sharp.
When we vote for them, we trust that our leaders will make sound public policy decisions under pressure. But when we are under pressure – like we are now from restrictions on social contact and movement - it seems the government doesn’t trust us to make the right decisions.
Despite all the rhetoric about how ‘Australians perform best in a crisis’ and messaging about ‘the community, not the government, will defeat the virus ’, the Federal Government has chosen coercive means to detain 1600-odd returnees in inner-city hotels, re-purposed as ’quarantine facilities’, under police and military guard.
If you ignore the downside, these so-called ‘last-resort’ measures are indeed the most effective way to enforce physical isolation and thus prevent transmission. But the government has been saying out loud that in all its calculations, it must balance regulations that target infection rates with other impacts, many of them detrimental to our general health and ability to function.
While there is widespread support for the policy, questions are emerging about how internal hotel procedures deal with medical emergencies, as was demonstrated at Perth's Crown Promenade yesterday.
Enforced quarantine (nothing to do with self-isolation) has further complicated compliance and the messaging that goes with it: there are different sets of rules for different categories of people and different penalties based on your infection status, your social contacts, when you entered the country, and where you live.
With the borders now closed, citizens and residents who return to Australia by sea or air are by law forced to isolate, not in their homes, but in designated city hotels or other facilities. These quarantine facilities are being run under state government health orders as designated by police commissioners.
Remember that embassies strongly urged Australians to come home. But the news about enforced isolation was only released a day prior to its commencement. This left returning travellers little time to consider what the new orders meant. My family was overseas and arrived in Sydney on the first day of the new restrictions. I had already informed them that I was preparing to stay in a serviced apartment to allow them to self-isolate at home. Plans were in place to make sure they were properly provisioned during the 14-day period.
All that changed when they found themselves locked 24/7 in sealed rooms with no opportunities to breathe fresh air or enjoy open space as a respite from the stifling confinement and grinding boredom. The complaints my family are making are much the same as those aired in the news media. Arrangements put in place at their inter-city hotel appear to maximise both the control of ‘guests’ and the convenience of hotel management and security personnel.
On arrival, hotel management made it clear (in writing) that they were neither in control of nor in-the-know about how the quarantine regime would operate.
“We are working with the NSW Health Department to find out more information for you but unfortunately, at this time it’s very limited,’ said a letter to the newly quarantined. “Information regarding medical support, prescription medicine, and health checks will be clarified tomorrow and we would like to apologise that this information wasn’t given to us for your arrival.”
The letter provided an enquiry email address and when my family expressed their annoyance about non-opening windows and fears about the health impacts of prolonged confinement, the standard reply came back: “Your self-isolation has been mandated by the Australian Federal Government, which restricts movement from any personnel within the building as we all commit to doing our part to reduce the spread of Covid-19 in Australia.”
It wasn’t just food orders that were banned but also “all external packages” on the advice of NSW Health. But within days this had been relaxed as the hotel switched to a ‘user-pays’ system. You’ve run out of toothpaste? Not our problem, according to hotel staff. Dirty laundry? Sure, we can send that to the hospital service for $22 a bag.
A nurse contacted them by phone but seemed only interested in monitoring COVID-19 symptoms, not general well-being. Another caller appeared to be external to the hotel and listened to complaints without promising anything.
In the fast-moving days leading up to the announcement, how thoroughly did authorities question whether these hi-rise inner-city watch houses were fit-for-purpose? What weight was given to the overall government imperative to cushion all sectors from the economic shock of lockdown? And were economic objectives - throwing a 'lifeline' to hotels - allowed to distort healthy policy?
Hotel complainants have been slapped down as ‘entitled whingers’. ’Pack them off to Christmas Island!’ some have urged. Ironically, Christmas Island is far more fit-for-purpose than the hotel chains. It has medical facilities on site and space to move around in while still being confined, as Wuhan evacuees found out in February.
“I know this is a terrible inconvenience for you but it is necessary to save lives and we thank you for your cooperation,” was the message from the Prime Minister to those who had no choice but to cooperate. This goes to the heart of social trust, crisis management and how best to get the community on board and motivated to ‘save lives’.
I believe choosing the coercive option for those who complied with official government advice to ‘come home’ was ill-conceived, inadequately thought through and put considerations unconnected with slowing the virus ahead of basic rights. People rely on these rights on during normal times and especially need them in an emergency like this one. This is not an argument against restrictions but maintaining one’s dignity in a crisis is a powerful source of strength for anyone trying to survive.
The best minds in Health and Home Affairs well know that the law recognises the right to humane treatment which must have featured in their risk analysis. The Attorney-General’s website has the detail stating that the right applies “to those detained for other [than criminal] purposes under the authority of the government. It applies to anyone detained, regardless of age or citizenship…in all facilities within the jurisdiction of the country”.
Not all hotel chains bought into the scheme, but the ones who did sign up did so voluntarily, have not ceded management control, and therefore have a duty of care to all guests, including those forbidden from leaving their rooms.
Those quarantined in hotels across the country need to have that right respected now more than ever, and so do the thousands of returnees who will follow them. Having one regime for those infected or known to be in contact with an infected person (self-isolation) and a different regime for those unlucky enough to return home after midnight on 28th March (enforced quarantine) will make less and less sense over time.
Even acknowledging that hotels are not fit-for-purpose, there are modifications to the way quarantine is managed that could make confinement more bearable for my family and the thousands of others to come. Many of these hotels have rooftop gardens, swimming pool landings and open areas. Why not devise a schedule where security personnel escort people wearing PPE room-by-room at designated times to open areas for a ‘breather’?
Hotel management could inform regular guests that those areas were off-limits at specified times. This could go a long way to ensuring that they don’t emerge from quarantine sicker than when they went in. Leaving the facilities with immune systems and psychological health uncompromised will improve their chances of avoiding infection on the outside.
Back in the community, the ‘stay-at-home’ message is central and dominant but not everyone gets it. It requires a lot of planning and adjustment. The boundaries will be pushed. So why not concentrate resources on making behaviour changes easier and more attractive for those struggling with competing obligations to family, work, children?
The smartest initiatives are already happening in the community. They are peer-to-peer, and spreading as fast as the virus. Identify what people are already doing well, promote and invest in it. Reward responsible behaviour, for example, by subsidising voluntary self-isolation in a serviced apartment, B&B or hotel.
One-size-fits-all coercive measures project power and can even flatten the curve for a time. But they are blunt instruments that are a sign of failed communication.
There are many agile innovations that leave individual dignity intact and help us draw on our own reserves of strength that will be required for the long haul. They will create buy-in rather than resentment. As a result, we will be better equipped to endure necessary deprivations in the cooperative spirit for which the Prime Minister has already thanked us for in advance.
This article was first published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Melbourne Age on 9th April 2020