Abstract

Article

The worst conflict is between right and right.

It is right to bring our people home from where they are stranded overseas, sometimes indangerous spots, particularly the danger of Covid-19.

it is also right to protect those who are here from suffering even death from its spread if it shoould escape into the public from those who are brought home. A secondary but not at all inconsequential harm is the harm to the community at large from a lock-down, if that were the consequence of such an escape.

The case for bringing them home is emotionally pressed by two major groups - those who have a personal interest and bias because of some association, either personal or in a general way with those who want to come home, and those with a general empathy with the people who are suffering the trials of exclusion but who do not or cannot rationally evaluate the scope and degree of threat and consequent harm of allowing them to return. The latter comes from an acute sensibility towards suffering actually observed as existential in association with a reduced sensibility to what isnot before their eyes.

Some who oppose their return simply do soout of an exaggerated self-interest, which is worse. Some referto the foolishness and selfishness of those who put themselves in their sorry position for fatuous reasons in the light of the risks, but these aremerely anecdotal cases identified by an irresponsible media searching for sensationalism,and they are irrelevant to the real issue.

A calm assessment of the comparison of the strength of the respective valid claims should have regard to two factors, the degree of risk of the occurrence, and the extent of harm. These should be read in the context that the circumstances are vry abnormal and consequences may cover a range from mild to catastrophic.

The former is already present for those who are overseas - they already suffer their plight and it is only its nature and degree which should demand assessment.

Conversly, the possible victims of an outbreak caused by the introduction of the virus do not presently suffer immediate harm, but the riisk of the ocurrence is far from slight, as experience has shown. From human error, to incompetence in the government's adoption of safety systems, to the difficulties of devising such systems because of lack of experience, to the conduct of those who wilfully flout it, the opportunity for failure to be assured of safety from an escape into the community of virus broought in by returning citizens is already demonstrated. The occasion of harm and its degree has varied from fortunate nil to very severe.

As for the nature and extent of consequential harm, the weight is very heavily in favour of refusing entry. The numbr of those kept out is not incoderable, but it is very small in proportion to the number who could be adversely affected by another serious outbreak.This is a significant factor.

While financial loss may be catastrophic to some who are kept out, it would be far small in total than that following a total lock-down. And the smaller loss couldbemoe easily relieved by governmentl assistance.

Of greater gravity is the compaison of the extentnd degree of harm to health. Apartfrom the relative numbers of those ho woould be affected, again  very substantial difference, those wishing to return would usualy not have the vulnerability to extreme suffering and even death of those who might be caught up by the escape into the community of vius broughtin by those returning. Such vulnerable people are usually beyond travelling.

The overall degree of potential harm from the respective risks is unfortunate ifpartly remediable in one case,but extreme in the other.

Unfortunately, the protagonists for bringing them home do not even mention or advert to the adverse features which, in the competition shoould prevail.