No COVID Concentration Camps, But That's Not the Point
PolitiFact Conflates Opinions, Obscures Primary Issue
In response to an Instagram post, PolitiFact Tuesday informed its readers that, no, the World Economic Forum, is not planning “COVID concentration camps”
That much is accurate.
But, again, PolitiFact seems to have intentionally focused on the most extreme element to denigrate an actual story.
The Instagram post – and PolitiFact – go on to discuss a current case in New York in which attorney Bobbie Anne cox is challenging the constitutionality of a law that would in fact allow the state to move people, against their will, into quarantine locations during a health emergency – as defined by the state.
While governments have had quarantine laws – appropriately – for, well, ever, this law goes terribly beyond the typical “you have typhoid, you have to stay away from people” concept in the past.
Waaay beyond that – from a Brownstone Institute article on the case: https://brownstone.org/articles/david-v-goliath-in-new-york/
“The governor’s regulation not only circumvents the legislature’s power and responsibility to enact appropriate laws for the citizenry, but it also takes that power beyond the local level, where it can most appropriately be considered, and completely fails to protect the rights of the individuals against misuse or mis-application by the state officials.
In this regulation, there is no requirement for the state government to prove that the targeted individual is infected, has been exposed to an infectious disease, or poses any actual risk to his/her fellow citizens. The application of the regulation is broad – not just limited to Covid cases.
There is no limit regarding the age or medical condition of the individual (it could be imposed on a child or a very elderly person), and there is nothing specified as to the duration of the quarantine, or how that duration would be determined. Most concerning: there is no mechanism provided for the individual to be released.”
What the fact check does is obscure the issue the issue at hand by juxtaposing a rational constitutional question with an irrational, negatively historical loaded characterization of the question.
From the fact check:
“But we’ve debunked a similar claim before; the contested regulation is not equivalent to throwing people into concentration camps, where political prisoners and members of national or minority groups are confined without trial.
The disputed rule would allow a public health authority to choose a temporary housing location as the setting for quarantine and isolation. In most cases, people would voluntarily isolate in their homes.”
PolitiFact’s characterization of the regulation is beyond milquetoast and, as is typical, more than gives the benefit of the doubt to the state when it comes to applying the law.
In other words, “they won’t really do it and if they do it won’t be that bad and do you want grandma to die so you stay home you selfish bastard!”
Therefore, this fact check is conflationary, incomplete, and misleading but may be seen as technically correct – at least the headline.
And here is the fact check: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/29/facebook-posts/quarantine-camps-takes-ny-public-health-rule-too-f/
Oh, and for those who say “it can’t happen here,” here are a couple of articles on Australia’s mandatory COVID quarantine camps - https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/coronavirus-international-politics/2021/12/__trashed-2
and
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-03/camps-open-to-address-covid-affected-rough-sleepers/100798900
Oh, and did you know had to pay for quarantine? Yup - $230 (Australian) per day per adult: