Leigh raised some interesting points in regards to discussions on COVID-19:
In the Australian corner of Twitter, the space is dominated by views that are militantly pro-lockdown, pro-COVID zero and pro-Labor premiers, and even the tamest of questions in those directions prompts an onslaught. Topics currently guaranteed to trigger a pile-on include data from official sources that highlights the minimal risks to children from COVID; reporting about the unintended costs of lockdowns including Australians stranded overseas and harm to mental health; information about how safe the AstraZeneca vaccine is; and any analysis of whether policies such as hard border closures and the denial of return for residents stuck interstate are proportionate to the risk.
One would imagine that in a democracy, restrictions on citizens’ movements and freedoms should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. One might also assume all citizens would welcome journalists’ questioning of such policies and indeed, view it as not merely desirable but essential. Such extreme measures may well be needed during a pandemic. There could be solid answers to every query about every policy, but the idea that such restrictions should be accepted unquestioningly, even during a crisis, is chilling.
For example: should journalists raise the fact that a fully vaccinated Victorian resident with a negative COVID test who agrees to two weeks in quarantine is currently barred indefinitely from returning to their home if they are in New South Wales, unless they are granted a rare exemption? I asked that question last week and was attacked non-stop. According to the mob mentality on Twitter, questioning that decree is unacceptable.
Is she right?