If a close relative suffered seriously because an operating surgeon was ignorant of world’s best practice, only surviving because of her healthy lifestyle, what would you say were the surgeon to brag to all and sundry how he had saved her?
That is a fair analogy of the claims about the Wuhan virus made by the national cabinet. Not only have there been fifteen times more deaths than Australia should have had, the productive economy has been seriously damaged, lives ruined, jobs lost, a massive debt imposed with a once free people effectively under house arrest.
Had the politicians bothered to find out and apply world’s best practice, none of this would have happened. Worse, unless their failure is acknowledged, this disastrous model will be rolled out as the ideal template whenever the next pandemic strikes. And strike it will, even if Beijing cleans up its wet markets and laboratories.
The politicians disingenuously claim credit for all the advantages from Australia being a distant island nation. With that advantage, the death count should have been not over ninety but minuscule.
But the politicians incompetently delayed applying best practice entry requirements until late March. Their failure was not limited to the way the Ruby Princess arrival was handled, even though the inquiry has been cynically limited to her.
When the politicians finally realised their entry requirements were an abysmal failure, they probably panicked and decided on this totally unnecessary and seriously-damaging lockdown.
Contrast this with the world’s best practice as applied in Taiwan. Without our great advantage of distance, Taiwan had immediately applied their meticulously-prepared defence plan.
This resulted in six deaths compared with our over 90, and that without the destruction of their economy, without sacking hundreds of thousands, without businesses closed and destroyed, without massive debt and without near martial law being declared. Our politicians came to their ostentatiously-named National Cabinet in apparent ignorance of world’s best practice.
This was yet another side effect of the treacherous coup to overthrow Tony Abbott which Malcolm Turnbull claims included Scott Morrison as a long-term, fully paid-up participant. Although detailed alleged conversations have been published in his diary and the press, Morrison has not yet replied.
The point about Abbott is that he happens to be the one Australian leader internationally acclaimed for his contributions on pandemic planning and communication when he was health minister. His work was the subject of rave reviews by American experts in crisis and risk communication, Drs Jody Lanard and Peter M. Sandman. Unlike almost all official communications on pandemics, they say Abbott’s is ‘wonderful’ and ‘by far the (world’s) best example’.
Incidentally, a glance at his work reveals that Abbott presciently prescribed that government action should not be dependent on a WHO declaration.
What is clear is that if Abbott had been on the National Cabinet, he would have insisted on the application of world’s best practice.
Without Abbott or any other leader experienced in these matters, the politicians chose to govern as they too often do, though computer modelling and reliance on unelected experts. But as the global warming debacle demonstrates, computer models are invariably wrong.
Despite this, politicians, and many in the mainstream media, treat each edition of some ever-changing model as infallible. This is little different from 1984’s Ministry of Truth changing historical records to be consistent with the new party line.
Then there are the experts, publicly funded and whose advice is also treated as infallible. So much so, government decisions are now often preceded with the formulaic ‘the advice is…’ supported by shallow justifications such as that ‘the science is settled’.
The politicians should spend a few hours in the court rooms of the nation. Apart from finding that, unlike parliament, when people swear oaths judges and juries expect them to honour them, the politicians would find that each side has expert witnesses who invariably give contradictory evidence. It is not that experts are dishonest, it is that, like everyone else, they have different opinions.
Are our politicians so naive they do not know this?
Thus, world-renowned American experts are now concluding that many, many more people have been infected with the Wuhan virus than previously concluded and that the death rate is therefore not too dissimilar from that for influenza.
So why lock down the economy when government should concentrate on limiting the entry of the virus and protecting the vulnerable?
The point is that without a leader like Abbott with experience of dealing with pandemics, the National Cabinet constantly went against world’s best practice. Was it that they and their class are too close to Beijing and readily accepted their ruling that Taiwan be treated as a pariah? Worse, too many went further, selling out to the communists, figuratively and sometimes literally.
For far too long, we have seen the politicians allowing the sell-out, often at bargain basement prices, of our premium and strategic assets to entities subject to the control and direction of the Beijing communists, all the while posing as typical capitalist investors.
Those assets should now be surrendered or if not, taken as reparations for the damages Beijing has imposed on us. A United Nations or WHO investigation will, even if attained, prove to be a dead letter.
Only a Nuremburg-style commission established with the United States as described in this column could form the legal basis for taking such assets as reparations. This crisis has demonstrated yet again that the politicians are unable to solve the major issues confronting the nation, from water, energy, electricity pricing, educational standards and defence against pandemics.
It has been said by the High Court that the people are sovereign.
It is time surely for Australians to give practical meaning to this observation; in brief, to take back their country.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10