Santa wrote:

---

For goodness sake! what a mob of whingers.

---

 Spot on. 

Mobi Condo wrote:

---

TheHeaths wrote:

---

I would accept locked out if it means all are locked out. We did in fact travel for nearly seven weeks in NSW and Qld this year, although well away from any affected areas, and accepted we needed to be flexible.

But in most cases, and certainly in the current SA case, locked out means locked out EXCEPT if you are facing domestic violence, a federal politician, you can justify a Health Department exemption, or you are an AFL football team, from wherever! That is selective lockout, not based on health reasons, but on subjective reasons, and cannot be defended as far as I am concerned on the basis of having the best health interests of the residents at heart. On that basis, residents deserve to be allowed home to quarantine in their home state. Show consistency, and people will accept it.

Anyway, they certainly wont listen to a disaffected resident and change things, will they.

---

Not too sure of the facts here, but Australia is signatory to various U.N. Human Rights thingos, and may be some states may be in contradiction of such when they ban folks from returning to their homes. There fore self quarantining at home with daily checks are in order here.

---

Unfortunatly the actions of a few spoil this option for the many, But I do wonder if a system of ankle bracelets and Geo-fencing around the property might not be a workable system to ensure people do actually stay home when they are supposed to. Now I wonder if that would start screams about peoples human rights, to me it seems no worse than locking people in a hotel room surrounded by high risk neighbors.
Landy.