Victoria’s stage four lockdown has been extended for a further two weeks, after which the state moves to a slightly easier stage three.
Although business has complained, it may well prove as popular with the electorate as the second wave measures previously announced.
The immediate reason why the lockdown is popular is obvious — it helps suppress and (people hope) eliminate the virus.
The puzzling aspect, however, is the degree of support for the methods used. Although medical evidence suggests lockdown helps control virus spread, there is little evidence it needs to be done by force.
Yet many people of goodwill support not only the lockdown but also hardline policy and military style enforcement of the rules. It appears they have bought the line that there is no alternative.
Margaret Thatcher in the UK famously used the phrase “there is no alternative” for her market reforms. It suits hardline or controversial policies — dismissing any possibility of argument. Victorian officials frequently use the phrase in relation to lockdowns.
There is justification for the claim in relation to distancing, isolation and quarantine. Public health officials have no real alternatives in the face of a contagious and frequently deadly virus for which there is no vaccine.
But clearly there are alternatives when it comes to how these measures are enforced. Quarantine and distancing are evidence based, supported by the medical profession, and good options for stopping COVID-19.
There, however, appear to be few if any evidence-based articles in medical journals saying the best way to ensure distancing is to bring in the army, institute curfews or have armed police knocking on doors.
A search turned up only one comment along these lines, from a security academic, not an epidemiologist. Indeed, much medical evidence runs counter to the use of armed force.
A rapid review of the literature in the journal Public Health in May found the main factors in adherence to quarantine were knowledge people had about the disease, social norms, perceived benefits of quarantine and perceived risk of the disease.
A study of the 2003 SARS outbreak in Toronto found the threat of enforcement had less effect on compliance than did the credibility of monitoring. Fighting boredom and other psychological stresses, muting stigma and delivering effective and believable communications to a population of mixed cultures and languages were critical.
There are many similar articles.
One can see the attractions of using heavy policing and bringing in the army. Since the invention of firearms, military dictators and muggers everywhere have found them persuasive. Pointing a gun will typically make someone obey lockdown laws.
The question is, are there other and better ways?
There probably are — at least, ones worth investigating.
Public information, to encourage communities to develop their own social norms, is effective in public health.
It works for vaccines which protect the community from diseases, some worse than COVID-19. We don’t send soldiers to stand over parents and make them immunise their kids, yet almost 95% of kids are immunised (more than 95% for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander kids).
The minority anti-vaxxers are addressed through communications, social pressure and financial disincentives, not armed force.
COVID lockdowns could also use positive incentives, like cash payments, for those who do the right thing rather than punishing those who don’t.
The attraction of armed force for governments is that they control it, can see how it works. If there are alternatives, how would a government know they worked better?
One good way would be to test them. These days, effective governments test different approaches. The premier’s department has a behavioural insights (or nudge) unit; part of its mandate is to conduct trials.
But unless a government is prepared to ask questions through trials and testing, we have self-fulfilling slogan: there is no alternative because the government has decided there is none.
In public policy there are always options. It would be astounding if the Victorian government had not been presented options for how to handle lockdown.
It would be reassuring if we knew the bureaucracy had pointed out the problems with authoritarian approaches — but that there were countervailing reasons for them (so far not disclosed). There would have been alternatives — and a choice would have been made for sound reasons rather than a slogan.
Reliance on authoritarian measures undermines democratic values and social cohesion. For the wealthy and influential they have few negatives, while they harm those at the margins: people, for example, with poor English or literacy, poor relationships with the police, insecure housing or other disadvantages.
People who fled, or whose ancestors fled, oppressive regimes are especially vulnerable.
Curfews have always been one of the main ways dictators keep people in fear and unable to support each other.
Police knocking on doors to check who is at home and demands that travellers show their permits, might have good health intentions behind them, but for some in the community they bring back memories of terror and oppression.
If the medical evidence is not enough, for social cohesion alone it is worth trying to find more sensitive ways to encourage lockdown and distancing.
“Police knocking on doors to check who is at home . . . bring back memories . . . .”
A month or so ago Matt Cunningham – Columnist NT News wrote re Colour of Police Uniforms and questioned Police employment of “black”. An highly intimidating colouration. Personally, I think Matt was spot on. Today, Police seek to intimidate. Gone is the easy banter between citizen and ‘The Force’. The more friendly NT khaki, a distant memory. Open neck sans tie etc. We reap what we sow? Yes, am intimidated and feel little comfort today, when in proximity.
Black certainly is off-setting. But surely not, do we seek a culture, societal replication of another national police force elsewhere where citizens venturing onto a street do so in fear of their lives?
SCRAP THE BLACK!
Completely agree. I have been completely flummoxed why public health seems to require a draconian approach – augmented with the discourse of public admonishment (‘doing the right/wrong thing’ etc) – when 100+ years of criminology suggests, sorry, confirms that such measures are largely about a public message, not an effective strategy. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that the discourse of science is very prescriptive (for very good reason – you don’t have bendable rules for experiments etc). So it’s the go-to approach for public health emergencies. But directing the population to achieving a set of desirable behavioural outcomes is far more nuanced than a set of draconian laws, and being told how bad you are for socialising/not getting tested.
And if you’re already loitering on the wing-nut fringe, such laws just confirm your fears of the New World Order (whatever that is … ).
I lost count of the number of references made to guns and armed police.
That is a different discussion, typically cops are unarmed only (I have observed) in NZ and UK though that might be fading away as the world changes.
Australian cops are armed; you might as well rail about why armed police are needed to enforce speeding rules. Coppers have been armed for longer than I’ve been alive.
Were they to be shooting anti-maskers or border breachers or any of the new COVID related stupidities you might be OK to raise the point, but you might as well rail against coppers wearing trousers – because that’s what they do.
There is no separate unarmed police force – should we create one?
These are mostly General Duties coppers who might be called some event where guns are – unfortunately – required.
Bank robbers don’t ask for a permit.
Your whole article – minus the gratuitous pot banging about armed police – might be worth a read but as it stands, it is impossible to parse any vital point.
References to armed police: one. Hopefully possible to add up without losing count. Whether or not police carry guns is not the main point of the article – it is about use of force. Truncheons, whips or other weapons might be substituted in various other jurisdictions.
You may also have noticed that the army was brought in to help with enforcement. Their presence is largely symbolic – signifies the State’s willingness to use force.
I seem to recall that WA were not routinely armed until the 90s – perhaps Rais can confirm?
The bulk of the population will support lockdown if good reasons are given and are believed by them. I see and read that these explanations and reason have been given many times by the Vic Authorities. However the media daily shows some bleating citizen, and worse the Liberal Pollys saying the opposite. This confuses the sheeple and encourages the stupid to behave contary to their best interests.
To prevent a general breakdown of responsible behavior the police action is both necessary and reasonable.
You probably have noticed that by some coincidence those acting up happen to get themselves on Social Media, followed by the MSM, giving them a massive ego trip and 15 minutes of fame.
So we need harsh enforcement because *checks notes* the people acting up want negative attention, which the fines and arrests stopped… somehow.
WA authorities haven’t been as tough, even during the lockdown. There were some warnings by police but very few fines or prosecutions. When my son returned to home isolation from a necessary trip to Sydney recently he had a polite visit from the police the day after his arrival. They saw him working in his garden and seemed comfortable with that. After that he received a daily SMS asking if he had any symptoms and we figured out that this might be a “soft” way of checking his movements.
Except for the ankle monitoring bracelets
There was some mention of something like that for extremely uncooperative travellers who repeatedly break quarantine. I don’t know if it’s actually been done. Personally for people who have no respect for others’ health I’d favour that as a minimum solution and if that didn’t work just lock the offender up.