Hey ttbn,

"do you really want to give them any more power when the next referendum on a republic comes around?"

- I've formed the conclusion that a bias government wouldn't bring a referendum of any kind that they didn't already have reason to believe would go their way.
A 'no' vote would do more harm to their agendas in the first place, so they won't do a referendum in support of agendas they want that they don't already think they can game and win.

As of yesterday in Australia, there were 240 deaths from Covid in a day. The only way we can bring that down is by mandating masking where lots of people gather, such as public transport and dare I say it, sporting crowds, shopping centres. The list goes on.
David

"Congratulations mhaze, you were right."

Oh dear....I blush. But tell me more (grin).

Being right about this wasn't really hard or particularly praise-worthy. By the time I first wrote of my doubts about the lockdown mania, it was the result of two weeks of going forensically through the data. Even more so, it was the result of reading and absorbing opinions from outside the government/medical cohort. Even in those early days, voices were being raised. But they were being drowned out by the censorious authorities who sought to silence any dissenting opinion. It was just a question of finding and verifying those sources.

Since those days, there are literally dozens (even hundreds) of reports, analyses and scientific papers examining and detailing the errors behind the lockdowns. That they were an expensive failure is now quite clear - although as we see here, some will take longer to catch on or catch up, and some are simply incapable of conceding they were led down the garden path.

As the world slides into recession, we see one of the results of the profligate spending accompanying the lockdowns. This was another prediction of those opposed to the lockdowns at the time.

Throughout that period, the government claimed to be following 'The Science'. But as with climate, there is no such thing as 'The Science'. There were a range of views. The governments chose one and then pretended that there were no other. Occasionally the mask (!) would slip and they'd admit that they were receiving alternate views. I mentioned one such incident around Berejiklian last year. Even last week Albanese admitted that he received a range of views over the mask mandate.

But they (the authorities) chose one set of views and sought to suppress all others. And the anxiously gullible bought it.

Thankfully the lockdowns are over (except in China), never to return. But the adverse consequences will be with us for years to come.

Dear mhaze,

You are an amusing fellow.

You claim;

"Since those days, there are literally dozens (even hundreds) of reports, analyses and scientific papers examining and detailing the errors behind the lockdowns."

Remember when you quoted from one of these anti-lockdown papers but failed to include the following finding from the same.

“When comparing across countries, the only countries in which we observe the introduction of SIP policies negatively changes the trajectory of excess deaths are Australia, Malta, and New Zealand.”

It did your brain in trying to wriggle past that one.

You really are a shocker.

The two of you can blissfully skip off patting each other on the back until the cows come home but the facts are lockdowns worked in this country despite your and Graham's ideological refusal to acknowledge such.

SR,

I pointed out all three places were islands. You chose to ignore that. The end.

I've always said that the quarantine made possible in places like Australia, NZ, Taiwan, Japan etc was a significant advantage, at least for a while. But that was quite different to locking down the peoples already inside the quarantine.

We've seen more than a few instances where statistics have bamboozled you SR. This is another. The reports on lockdowns compare similar places with differing policies to determine what worked. They find that lockdowns didn't affect the outcome. Just cherry-picking places with low numbers and lockdowns isn't how this works since there were also places with high numbers and lockdowns. Other factors come into play eg the ability to successfully quarantine. There are even quite a few statistics in this very article. Just whistling past them in the hope that you can avoid the import of those numbers isn't the path to the truth but instead a search for confirmation.

I get that its not in your nature to admit, even to yourself, that you fell for the government line (again!) but most of us have moved on to look at the effects of these failed policies and how to avoid them in the future.

As the article points out, part of the issue was the concerted efforts to censor wrong-think. We have to ensure that never happens again. Perhaps if people were exposed to both sides of the argument they wouldn't fall for and become wedded to the approved story such as you have.

Dear mhaze,

All those words and still a refusal to acknowledge the lockdowns worked here. They worked when there was a breach of quarantine, they worked when there was an outbreak. They worked when Delta was ravaging the rest of the world and they worked to keep us safer until vaccination rates were sufficient to ease them. They worked in Victoria. They worked in NSW while NYC with a similar population was experiencing 800 Delta deaths per day.

They worked and your pathetic, petty, post event sniping will never change that fact.