Yeah, I think a lot of the time people expect the rules to be flexible and applied in a reasonable manner.

In the story you linked, any reasonable person would have let the Germans dock.

They had been isolated at sea for more than 14 days, and applied for a docking permit through the appropriate channel, and stated they needed to repair their boat.

The NZ government has a process which they used, but rejected them based on a procedural technicality.

If you allow flexibility on such a matter, people will come to expect it. Some will be doing things where the flexibility would be permissible, but a lot would go further and be surprised that flexibility cannot be extended to them. It's a very slippery slope, and doesn't really seem feasible to implement.

I'm no lawyer, but as someone who remembers the ludicrous, counterproductive ramifications of schoolyard "zero tolerance" policies against physical fighting (you might as well escalate any fight with a bully because you'll be punished no matter what), and as someone who's been let off the hook by cops a couple times in my life, I'm a firm believer in upholding the spirit of the law, not the letter. People aren't machines. The letter of the law exists merely for people to interpret and apply with good judgment and consideration of context, complexities of which are often offloaded into the phrase "a reasonable person".

Police can let people off the hook because they are already dealing in exceptional cases. They only get involved by exception, and making exceptions on exceptions is scalable.

Everyone should expect flexibility when the law is applied to a case where it doesn't make sense. If someone makes the wrong assumption and is surprised, that is a risk they took and I am ok with that. This doesn’t mean the law needs to be applied unwavering when it doesn’t make sense.

> In the story you linked, any reasonable person would have let the Germans dock.

Shit NO. Extracts from article below:

“Their application was declined because the Director-General of Health was not reasonably satisfied that the ship had a compelling need to arrive in New Zealand that reached the high threshold required”

“People in vessels travelling to New Zealand to avoid the cyclone season in the Pacific may have other genuine humanitarian reasons or other compelling needs for coming, which would need to be demonstrated in order for these vessels to qualify for an exemption – but financial loss alone is unlikely to meet the criteria.”

“‘As much as our country is known for its hospitality, New Zealand cannot become a maritime Covid-19 safe haven for everyone in unfortunate circumstances’.”

“Immigration NZ’s national manager of border and visa operations Peter Elms said their decision to knowingly travel here without approval “0’demonstrates a blatant disregard for New Zealand’s border restrictions’.”

NZ has nearly eradicated Covid again, so we are a desirable destination, and we need to ensure we are strict otherwise every Tomaz, Diyk, und Harri will be sailing here.

I dont understand what you mean by "shit no" and repeating the extracts from the article don't help explain it. If I ran the country, I would be open to letting people dock provided I could be sure they posed no covid-19 risk.

You don’t run the country, and acting against the wishes of the majority and NZ scientific advisors sounds rather despotic.

They knew exactly what they were trying on, and had been firmly told that NZ does not want any yachts to winter over: “Upwards of 300 small yachts are stuck in limbo across the South Pacific, mostly in Fiji and French Polynesia.” from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...

I understand the worry that the tourists feel, stuck on their yachts. But NZ has decided we don’t want them, so they need to find another solution to their travel problems. This isn’t some sudden problem and they have had many months to sort out some solution, rather than hoping NZ might be lenient.

NZ is desperately trying to eradicate Covid, and we stand a chance of doing it, so long as we don’t do stupid shit like trusting tourists (who seem to regularly ignore lockdown rules and have been superspreaders in other countries).

>You don’t run the country, and acting against the wishes of the majority and NZ scientific advisors sounds rather despotic.

This is exactly the part I am rather confused by. Do the scientific advisors actually believe that there is no safe way to quarantine these tourists or that they pose an actual risk? It seems that it would be trivial from a logistics perspective for NZ do derisk the situation and the competent health advisors there would understand how.

Reading between the lines of what you are saying, it sounds like this is a political issue in NZ where the population feels afraid and hostile towards outsiders. Of course the collective people of NZ have the right to set immigration policy as they choose, as a matter of national sovereignty. I am simply curious as to why it is the way it is.

The borders are closed. That's not a technicality and having your own form of transport doesn't change this.

If travelling by ship takes more than 2 weeks, there is very good reason to assume, that they are Covid-free. Also they could be allowed to dock and be required to stay on the ship until cleared by testing. So yes, they have broken the word of the law, but the form of transport should make a difference.

Regardless of being out at sea for 14 days. If the border is closed you can't enter the country. Just because you arrive in a boat by yourself doesn't change this.

Oh sure, it doesn't change the law. My point was rather, that the law should distinguish how people come into the country.

Did you read the article? There is clearly a process in place where a ship can request a permit to dock and the Germans used it

> Their application was declined because the Director-General of Health was not reasonably satisfied that the ship had a compelling need to arrive in New Zealand that reached the high threshold required for either of these exemptions.

Nice. Just to be clear, there isn't a process. There is the ability to get an exemption. It's a default no.

I think we agree on the facts. There is a process to get an exemption and without going through the process and a sufficient reason, the default is no.

> I dislike how people seem to think that the rules apply to the masses but on an individual level they don't apply to them.

It's particularly galling when the person with this mindset is also responsible for writing those very rules:

https://time.com/5842489/dominic-cummings-coronavirus/

They should have applied before disembarking, but three people traveling by boat for (I assume) over 7 days are a very low risk. A lot of regulations that have popped up have been overly blunt.

> but three people traveling by boat for (I assume) over 7 days are a very low risk.

I think there is an element of proportionality missing here. In this case, it's a very low risk of what? Well, it's a very low risk of going through yet another lock down. The previous one cost the NZ economy billions and threw something like 10% of their population out of work.

In case the picture isn't clear, I'm an Australian. We have benefit of experience here. One state, Victoria, managed to screw up their quarantine regime. The result has been over 700 deaths, and 100's of billions of dollars in lost work, and an economy that shrank by 40%.

The other extreme is Western Australia. Unlike the rest of Australia's states, they shut their borders completely, turning themselves into almost a country within a country. They have been and continue to be heavily criticised for it. The outcome has been no new cases for months, no lockdown whatsoever for months, and they are the only state whose economy grew in the last quarter.

In economic terms, it's very clear what the right course of action is. And given the cost of just one case leaking through the quarantine wall, I'm sort of surprised the penalties aren't hasher to send the strongest possible message. Burn the boat maybe?