Australia's quarantine system needs a smarter design
- Written by Mathew Aitchison, Professor of Architecture and CEO of Building 4.0 CRC, Monash University
The announcement[1] that the Victorian and federal governments will build a 1,000-bed COVID quarantine hub at Mickleham in Melbourne’s north marks a welcome end, or at least a fresh chapter, to the finger-pointing over Australia’s quarantine saga.
Time is of the essence when protecting Australians from COVID, so hats off to both governments for setting an ambitious timeline that could see the facility up and running by the end of this year.
But in their haste to deliver an alternative to hotel quarantine, we believe the governments haven’t taken advantage of the newest available innovations.
The plan[2] for the proposed quarantine facility produced by the Victorian government is, by its own admission, little more than a specced-up version of a mining camp, similar to the Howard Springs facility already in use in the Northern Territory. In turn, this type of construction harks back to the postwar quarantine facilities built from the 1950s onwards.
Part of the problem with the current proposal is the focus on the “hardware”, with almost no discussion of the “software”. By hardware, we mean buildings, physical structures, road layouts and infrastructure; by software, we mean how it will be used, the operational patterns and processes, and “softer” operational modes of use and their technologies.
This hardware-centric approach would be more reassuring if the hardware were the best and fittest for use, but unfortunately the proposal has reached for what it knows, and what it knows is around 70 years old.
A smarter way
We and our colleagues at the Building 4.0 Cooperative Research Centre[3], funded jointly by the federal government and a consortium of industry, are developing a state-of-the-art design, called Q_Smart[4], which we submitted to the Victorian government in March 2021.
In our proposal, building services, controls, sensors and management systems (alongside well-designed and efficiently produced buildings) all play a role in preventing the transmission of COVID-19. We might think of this as a correction towards a more “software-driven” approach, as it seeks to use a range of processes, techniques and technologies[5] already available from our collaborators at Siemens to augment the work done by the physical structures.
In terms of the physical layout, our design avoids the large common corridors, inadequate air-tightness controls for rooms, or unhygienic air handling systems that have emerged as problems with current hotel stock.
References
- ^ announcement (www.theage.com.au)
- ^ plan (www.vic.gov.au)
- ^ Building 4.0 Cooperative Research Centre (building4pointzero.org)
- ^ Q_Smart (building4pointzero.org)
- ^ range of processes, techniques and technologies (www.linkedin.com)
- ^ Building 4.0 CRC (building4pointzero.org)
- ^ already pointed out (theconversation.com)
- ^ This is how we should build and staff Victoria's new quarantine facility, say two infection control experts (theconversation.com)
- ^ Hotel quarantine causes 1 outbreak for every 204 infected travellers. It's far from ‘fit for purpose’ (theconversation.com)
- ^ Dr Bronwyn Evans AM (building4pointzero.org)
- ^ Building 4.0 CRC (building4pointzero.org)
- ^ Engineers Australia (www.engineersaustralia.org.au)