---

@davidc4430 wrote:

One of nine Melbourne public housing towers to remain in strict quarantine due to coronavirus infections

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/melbourne-public-housing-towers-one-to-remain-under-lockdown/...

 

its prolly a good example of why these high rise slums are a bad idea

 

in saving money by 'housing' thousands on a small site we have built huge virus incubators

 

we certainly have become the clever country

 

we have millions of acres of vacant land in this country but we feel the need to house people in these stupid places

---

okay, I replied before taking issue with your “slums” comment in the above post.

Now I am going to take issue with what you posted based on some ‘facts’ . . . . ‘facts’ that are in the link you provided. You take such a strong stand on the high-rise public housing, denouncing them with language such as slums, virus incubators, and stupid places.

For the nine towers:

- two of these had no cases (hardly virus incubators there!)

- six others had a low enough level of cases to be moved onto the same restrictions as everyone else in Melbourne, so no more a risk than the general population in Melbourne

- any positive cases in those six being subject to the higher home quarantine restriction (appropriate action)

- only one of those towers has cases at a level to remain on the strict shut down (I know you acknowledge this in your post)

The residents of these public housing places probably need to live in the city so that they can access public transport, employment, education and support facilities (counselling, medical, family etc).

What you call slums may well be some people’s castles, and the language you use doesn’t distinguish between the acceptable units in those high-rises and the ones that may be in a much less liveable condition.