Why talk about Covid. It is clear that no proper investigation will ever be held into the unnecessary but deliberate removal of our freedoms, right to choice, right to free speech, and economy-wrecking lock downs borrowed from Communist China. There will be no investigation by the people responsible for the atrocious behaviour - because they are still in charge: the politicians and their advisors, the bureaucrats: many of whom would have to put themselves behind bars for what they did if they allowed the truth to be discussed publicly.

And, they are still there because they've got voters too frightened to take a chance, and replace them.

The protests were ignored at the time, and telling war stories in 2025 won't change that. If something like Covid happened again, everything would be the same as it was then; particularly now that Albanese has sold out Australia to the WHO.

There are no Spartans in Australia.

Three hundred stand in defiance… of basic public health measures, with utter disregard for anyone but themselves.

This article reads less like history and more like COVID-era, anti-science fan fiction. Melbourne protesters are Spartans and Daniel Andrews was Xerxes - because apparently resisting lockdowns is now the moral equivalent of holding the pass at Thermopylae.

Get real.

Spartans faced spears, arrows, and certain death. Melbourne protesters faced fines, restrictions, and the discomfort of not going to Bunnings.

Nobody was enslaved. Nobody was dragged off for dissent.

And let's not pretend the protesters "saved the city," it was vaccines, contact tracing, and the cooperation of millions who made sacrifices without shouting about it on Facebook Live.

Yes, the arrest of Zoe Buhler was jarring, and overreach in hindsight, but turning her into some Rosa Parks of the anti-lockdown movement is revisionism at best. It was one of many missteps during a complex and evolving emergency, not proof of tyranny.

Viljoen leans hard on symbolism - Shrine of Remembrance, ancient Greece, Topher Field speeches - but the actual outcomes? The lockdown continued. The roadmap was delivered. Life moved on. And most Melburnians, while exhausted, understood the stakes.

You don’t need to mythologise a fringe protest to have a legitimate conversation about government overreach or the psychological toll of lockdowns.

I’ve got time for honest critiques of lockdown policy. But this kind of hero cosplay just cheapens the real suffering of that period - on all sides. There were no warriors here. Just citizens - some scared, some angry, most doing their best in an unprecedented mess.

History deserves a lot better than this.

Yep, sick reading, this is more of that Sovereign Citizens nonsense. At the moment an anti-vaxxer/Sovereign Citizen is hiding out in Victoria, accused of shooting dead two coppers dead, and wounding another. Another one of their folk hero's, Thomas Sewell has been remanded in custody on serious assault charges. ttbn are you a Sovereign Citizen?

The lockdowns saga was a revelation as to the timidity of the average Australian. Hit them with a little fear and they are prepared to surrender all their liberties in a trice. ...

"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin (Ben not Buddy).

At the time I found it shocking just how compliant the Australian people were when confronted with what turned out to be false fears.

It was heartening to see some people stand against the authoritarians of the left, but the way the majority of the polity succumb was revealing as to how fragile democratic freedoms truly are, in the face of government disinformation.

Its not the slightest bit surprising to see Chairman Dan hob-knobbing it with fellow authoritarians in Peking this week.

As to the history of the 300...

The author writes..."I recommend Zack Snyder's 2006 epic film 300."

Nup. That's the last place to go to see the truth of Thermopylae. I once managed to sit through the entirety of this piece of fiction, noting every historical error I found. I ended up with 5 closely written pages of errors.

If you want a proper historic understanding then read Peter Green's "The Greco-Persian Wars" or better yet Herodotus's History.

The author wrote..."buying precious time for the Greek city-states to prepare-culminating in the Hellenic victory at Plataea the following year."

The real victory was at Salamis in the same year. Plataea was the coup de grâce.

BTW, although we always talk of the 300, there were also 700 Thespians ( and a smaller number of Thebans) who fought an died alongside the Spartans.

mhaze,

Franklin’s quote is brought up every time someone’s asked to wear a mask or queue for toilet paper. But quoting 18th-century revolutionaries during a 21st-century pandemic is just posturing.

Franklin wasn’t talking about airborne viruses. He was talking about the right to govern oneself under an unelected monarchy, not the right to wander around Bunnings mid-outbreak.

You frame compliance as cowardice. I see it as cooperation. Millions of Australians didn’t panic. They didn’t hoard ivermectin or start Facebook livestreams about tyranny. They stayed home, wore masks, looked out for their neighbours, and got us through a once-in-a-century crisis.

As for “false fears,” 20,000 Australians did die from COVID, even with restrictions. Globally, the number's over 7 million. We weren’t scared of shadows - we were responding to real risk.

And no one “surrendered all liberties.” We voted. We criticised. We held inquiries. We had protests. Some of them made global headlines. Others, like the 5 September protest, were so poorly attended they had to be mythologised into a Thermopylae cosplay to seem important.

As for the history lesson, you’re not wrong about Salamis or the Thespians. But it’s telling that you engage more seriously with the film critique than with the actual comparison being made.

The author of the piece turned a lockdown protest into the birth of Western freedom. That deserved mockery, not footnotes.

Trumpster,

The words of the slave owning Benjamin Franklin; ""those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Seems old Ben didn't apply that to black people.

Are you also one of the nut jobs called a Sovereign Citizen.

"At the time I (sovereign citizen mhaze) found it shocking just how compliant the Australian people were when confronted with what turned out to be false fears." Yep, there was no Covid, in fact the "vaccine" was a mind controlling drug, put out there by The Illuminati. How are Thomas Sewell and Dezi Freeman doing, they both claim to be Sovereign Citizens.

In fact, over 28000 died of Covid (or with Covid) in Australia. More in Victoria than any other state despite, or more likely because of, it being the most locked down jurisdiction in the country, if not the world.

Of the 28000, 96% were elderly and those younger had comorbidities. Healthy adults under 60 were effectively immune. Yet they were the ones locked down and stopped from doing their jobs. Although, as you'd expect, public servants were protected from that and allowed to avoid the lockdowns.

Masks? now shown to be ineffective at best, dangerous at worst.

Stay at home? Being indoors has been shown to be significantly more dangerous than being outdoors.

Still its good to see the usual government sycophants haven't learned anything and will bow to new authoritarian instructions in the future.

"Yep, there was no Covid, in fact the "vaccine" was a mind controlling drug, put out there by The Illuminati."

I don't think any of that is true Paul. But you'd know more about that than me

Trumpster,

"Yep, there was no Covid, in fact the "vaccine" was a mind controlling drug, put out there by The Illuminati." That was ear bashed to me only a few months back by a nut job who said he was also a Sovereign Citizen, gave me his business card to boot, do you have a business card? That was before the likes of Thomas Sewell and Dezi Freeman were claiming the same thing. Trumpster, a simple question, do you also profess to being a Sovereign Citizen, your post seems to indicate that way. What you say?

Bad luck that Old Ben was also a slave owner. BTW your man The Donald has renamed the Pentagon The WAR Department, rather apt wouldn't you say, considering America starts most of the worlds wars.

mhaze,

28,000 Australians died, and you’re still trying to spin it as proof the response was worse than the virus.

Yes, most who died were elderly or had comorbidities. That’s how most viruses kill. But "only the vulnerable" is a chilling standard for deciding who gets protected. You don’t not build flood levees because "only people on low ground will drown."

And the idea that "healthy adults were immune" is flat-out wrong. Many did die. Many more were hospitalised. And tens of thousands now live with long COVID - chronic fatigue, brain fog, organ damage. Not everyone’s fine just because they didn’t end up in a morgue.

As for lockdowns "causing" deaths in Victoria: no serious analysis backs that up. Victoria had higher deaths despite lockdowns, not because of them. Delta hit harder here. Aged-care outbreaks spiralled before vaccines were widely available. Cherry-picking the death toll to attack public health measures is intellectually lazy, and morally grotesque.

//Masks were ineffective.//

False.

Randomised studies, including the Bangladesh and Danish trials, showed reduced transmission - especially when mask use is widespread. N95s are even more effective. "Dangerous" masks? Only if you get health advice from Facebook memes.

//Indoors is more dangerous than outdoors.//

True, and lockdowns didn’t tell people to crowd together indoors. They told people to stay apart. You know, to stop a virus that spreads through the air.

What’s revealing is how easily you downplay every protective measure - and how quickly you pivot to culture-war framing. "Sycophants." "Authoritarian instructions." "Public servants got off easy." It's not argument, it's just slogan soup.

This wasn’t perfect policy. It was triage. On the fly. In a crisis. And Australians overwhelmingly complied - not out of fear, but out of decency.

That’s the part you can’t seem to forgive.

This wasn’t perfect policy. It was triage. On the fly. In a crisis. And Australians overwhelmingly complied - not out of fear, but out of decency.
John Daysh,
I agree with that evaluation !

"You don’t not build flood levees because "only people on low ground will drown."

Actually you do.

"But "only the vulnerable" is a chilling standard for deciding who gets protected."

Good old JD...at it again. I didn't say "only the vulnerable" despite the now well-used fake quotes. If you look back through my posts over the years, and most of what the research now shows, the vulnerable needed to be protected. but not by locking up those not vulnerable. Let the rest get out into the community and develop a natural herd immunity, which would in turn protect those most at risk.

Victoria was the most locked down jurisdiction in Australia. It also had the highest death rate. You do the sums.

"//Masks were ineffective.// False."

Way behind the times, as usual. I don't want to get into all this again since it was well covered years ago and you're not really interested in learning something you'd prefer wasn't true. But I'd point you to the Cochrane Review which found "wearing surgical masks in the community probably makes little or no difference in preventing influenza-like or COVID-19-like illness (risk ratio: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84–1.09)."

Or the DANMASK-19 Trial which found no significant difference in infections between a mask group and a control unmasked group.

Equally, other smaller studies suggested increased risk if the mask wasn't worn correctly as opposed to not at all, and reduced social development in children.

"and how quickly you pivot to culture-war framing. "

That wasn't a pivot. That was returning to what the article was about and away from your attempt to reframe it to something else.

"And Australians overwhelmingly complied - not out of fear, but out of decency."

No it was fear. And placing that fear above their liberty. And falling for the government's and health authority's fearmongering.

__________________________________________________________________--

"a simple question, do you also profess to being a Sovereign Citizen, your post seems to indicate that way"

No. But the difference between believing whatever the government tells you and thinking for yourself is probably too hard for you to fathom.

You’re right, mhaze, you didn’t say “only the vulnerable.”

But you implied that everyone else should’ve been out “building herd immunity.” Which sounds noble until you remember that herd immunity only works after mass infection - or mass vaccination.

"Of the 28000, 96% were elderly and those younger had comorbidities. Healthy adults under 60 were effectively immune."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23631#400037

And COVID wasn't chickenpox. It overwhelmed hospitals in developed countries and left tens of thousands with long-term damage.

The idea that we should’ve let it rip to protect the vulnerable by infecting everyone else was speculative at best - and catastrophic at worst. Sweden tried something close. It backfired. Their death toll soared, and they still had to lock down later. Meanwhile, Australia kept deaths incredibly low until Omicron, when vaccination levels were high enough to soften the blow.

Your "do the sums" line about Victoria ignores that it was hit earlier and harder, before most people were vaccinated, because we were trying to protect the vulnerable.

As for masks, the Cochrane Review has been widely misused (even the authors have said this). It doesn’t prove masks don’t work - it shows the limits of study design in real-world conditions. Meanwhile, lab and observational data still support the effectiveness of N95s and widespread usage.

But none of this really matters, does it?

Because this was never just about masks or herd immunity. It’s about a worldview - one where public health is tyranny, cooperation is cowardice, and anyone who complied “sacrificed liberty.”

And yet… Australia saved tens of thousands of lives. Hospitals didn’t collapse. People got vaccinated. Kids went back to school. The economy rebounded.

No government got everything right. But that’s not a reason to mythologise a handful of fringe protesters as the moral centre of the nation.

That’s the original article’s sin - and all this noise is just a long-winded attempt to defend it.

You can keep pretending this was 1984. Most of us lived through it as 2020 - messy, flawed, human. And we got through it together.

"Sweden tried something close. It backfired. Their death toll soared, and they still had to lock down later."

False and false. Sweden never locked down later. And the Swedish excess death toll shows that their policy worked.

"it shows the limits of study design in real-world conditions"

Well some of us live in the real world.

"Meanwhile, lab and observational data still support the effectiveness of N95s and widespread usage."

That was never in doubt. Correctly worn, masks work. But in the real world outside the lab or the surgical theatre, they were worse than useless. A report from the CDC said that masks had to be changed every 3 hours or whenever they were touched. Also that they had to be so tight to the face that they left an indent when removed. But none of that happened in the real world. Indeed, governments were telling people to wear the masks and pull them down to eat and drink. But touching them even once meant their efficacy was eroded.

"And yet… Australia saved tens of thousands of lives. Hospitals didn’t collapse. People got vaccinated. Kids went back to school. The economy rebounded."

How do you know lives were saved? That's just unverifiable assertion. People got vaccinated under duress and then stopped when the dangers were no longer suppressed. And the economy did rebound. But only after adding 100's of Billions of dollars to the debt we'll be handing on to the next generation.

Your idea of success and mine are very different.

And all for a virus that was not much worse than a bad flu.

Indy,

Thanks for your comment. It's genuinely nice to be on the same side of a debate for a change.
_____

That’s selective history, mhaze.

//Sweden never locked down later. And the Swedish excess death toll shows that their policy worked.//

That’s selective history. Sweden didn’t impose a full lockdown like Australia, but they did introduce restrictions - school closures, gathering limits, travel advisories - and their own health authority later admitted mistakes, especially in protecting aged care. Their excess deaths in 2020–21 were much higher than Norway, Denmark, or Finland. Saying their “policy worked” only holds if you ignore their neighbours’ far better outcomes.

//Masks had to be changed every 3 hours… governments told people to pull them down to eat and drink… efficacy eroded.//

No serious researcher claims real-world mask use was perfect. But imperfection doesn’t equal useless. Lab studies, observational data, and population-level trends all point to the same thing: widespread mask-wearing reduced transmission. Dismissing them as “worse than useless” is the very definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

//How do you know lives were saved? That's just unverifiable assertion.//

We know because counterfactuals are the bread and butter of epidemiology. Compare countries: Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea kept deaths extraordinarily low early on, before vaccines. The contrast with the US, UK, and Brazil isn’t speculation - it’s lived reality, written in the numbers.

That’s not speculation, that’s how we measure lives saved.

//All for a virus that was not much worse than a bad flu.//

This is the myth that refuses to die. COVID killed millions in just a few years. Seasonal flu never came close to overwhelming ICUs in developed countries, nor did it leave millions with chronic complications. Even now, the long COVID burden dwarfs what influenza leaves behind. To call that “not much worse than flu” is to flatten a mountain into a molehill.

In short: Sweden’s “success” vanishes once you compare it properly. Masks weren’t perfect, but they mattered. And the “bad flu” line is denial, not debate.

We've been through all this a few times before.

"We've been through all this a few times before."

Yes we have. and you still don't get it.

"Compare countries: Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea kept deaths extraordinarily low early on, before vaccines. The contrast with the US, UK, and Brazil isn’t speculation - it’s lived reality, written in the numbers."

So you want to compare three countries that, due to geography ,were able to institute quarantine with countries that couldn't. Nothing to do with lockdowns. Good to know.

That’s quite the pivot, mhaze!

//So you want to compare three countries that, due to geography ,were able to institute quarantine with countries that couldn't.//

Ah, so we’ve gone from claiming that the lockdowns didn’t work to acknowledging that the lockdowns did work - but only because of geography.

Geography helped, yes. But quarantine alone doesn’t explain the outcomes.

If it were just about being an island, then the UK - also an island - should’ve matched Australia. It didn’t. If you want to credit “geography,” you also need to explain how Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea (all densely populated and close to China) also had far lower death tolls early on than the US or Brazil.

What those countries had in common wasn’t location. It was coordinated public health policy: fast testing, clear communication, targeted restrictions, and yes, lockdowns where needed.

You want to pretend Australia’s success had nothing to do with decisions, just geography and luck. That lets you avoid admitting that millions of Australians who followed the rules did the right thing, and that lockdowns, for all their flaws, bought time for vaccines and saved lives.

But the numbers still tell the story:

- Australia’s COVID death rate in 2020-21 was dramatically lower than countries without similar restrictions.
- That gap only closed after vaccines rolled out.
- It wasn’t just luck. It was choices.

So yes, mhaze, we’ve been through this before. And the evidence hasn’t changed. What’s shifted is the framing - from lockdowns being tyranny to working because of geography.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

"Ah, so we’ve gone from claiming that the lockdowns didn’t work to acknowledging that the lockdowns did work - but only because of geography."

Lockdowns weren't the same as national quarantines. Lockdowns didn't work. Quarantines worked for a time, until they were lifted.

Thanks for the clarification, mhaze.

So now we’re in agreement that restricting movement at scale did save lives, at least temporarily.

Call it quarantine, lockdown, stay-at-home orders - it’s all the same principle: limit spread by limiting contact. The difference is just what you’re willing to brand as legitimate.

The thing is, quarantine only works when backed by internal controls, and those controls were lockdowns. You can’t seal the border and then let the virus rip inside. Ask Western Australia, which kept COVID out early and used lockdowns to contain outbreaks. That’s why they had one of the lowest COVID death rates in the world.

You keep claiming that lockdowns didn’t work, but you’ve already conceded that national-level movement restrictions did. That’s not a rebuttal of lockdowns - it’s a rebrand.

And yes, restrictions were eased later - because they bought us time for vaccines, treatments, and preparation.

That was the point.

So if your final position is that “quarantine worked, but lockdowns didn’t,” what you’re really saying is: you agree with the public health strategy - you just didn’t like the name.

Hi Mhaze,
When I said I recommended Zack Snyder's 2006 film, '300', I was leaning towards its epic nature, the ‘vivid and spectacular representation of the defiant stand taken by Leonidas and his elite Spartan warriors’. The film attempted to hold the modern viewer in awe of the skill, heroism and sacrifice of the Spartan band, with a surreal, almost comic book portrayal. If you’re searching for historical accuracy, yes, go and read Green’s essay, or Herodotus. But that’s not what Jack Snyder was aiming for. He wanted to capture the weight of their achievement and bring it to a modern appreciation.

Compare this with other modern films, for which the history has been quite plainly and adequately documented, such as ‘Chariots of Fire’, ‘Apollo 13’, ‘The King's Speech’, or ‘Sully’, or a dozen other movies I could name. They’ll all trim historical nuance to fit a two-hour runtime, favouring heroic arcs over complexity. It’s not cheating history, but more a reflection of the attention span of a modern person, and how long they are capable of sitting in a theatre without needing a toilet break.

John Daysh,
Thanks for giving your perspective of the COVID era, and your defence of the Aus authorities’ COVID response. I think there are as many perspectives as there are thoughtful people. It was a complex time. I’m simply happy that I have the freedom here to give my perspective. Mine was a perspective shared by many, yet largely silenced and excluded from the mainstream media at the time, and subject to sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious forms of censorship. The censorship was real, which is partly why certain numbers of people felt compelled to take to the streets, to ensure that their voices could not being ignored.

You challenged that the street protesters were not subject to violence in any manner comparable to Spartan warriors, including death. Of course not. The comparison to Thermopylae in 480 BC was not for its violence, but for its symbolism of defiance.

But since you mention violence, that’s certainly what Dan Andrews and Victoria Police were promising to greet any protester on September 5. So while the levels of violence didn’t really eventuate that day, my respect for the bravery of each of the protesters was immense, not least because they arrived not knowing how things would unfold. If only 20 turned up, rather than 300, which was always a distinct possibility, then VicPol might have felt emboldened to run roughshod over any measure of propriety. They knew they had all mainstream media totally in their palms to tell whatever story they would want for the 6pm news.

And later, as protests grew going into 2021 we saw what levels of violence VicPol was willing to unleash on peaceful protesters, which included firing rubber bullets on several occasions to disperse crowds – a fact that mainstream media have tried to keep hush hush as much as possible. For rubber bullets have been known on many occasions to cause death.

Michael Viljoen

Thanks for the reply, Michael.

I appreciate the clarification of your intent. But let’s be honest, your original article was not just “your perspective” of a complex time. It cast a symbolic halo over 300 lockdown protesters by comparing them to Leonidas’ Spartans at Thermopylae - as if their defiance formed the moral backbone of Australian democracy.

That’s not nuance. That’s myth-making.

You say the comparison wasn’t about violence. But you brought up the Spartans’ sacrifice, the Persian threat to democracy, the failure of Athens without resistance, and even quoted the movie 300. That isn’t subtle. It’s theatrical framing designed to recast a fringe protest as a foundational moment for civil liberty.

And while you now say protesters didn’t know what would happen, the reality is: they showed up to a strongly discouraged gathering, not Tiananmen Square. Yes, Victoria Police overreached at times and that should be debated. But rubber bullets weren’t fired that day, and no protester was shot or killed. To invoke Thermopylae, then quietly cite the possibility of rubber bullet deaths, is a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

You also said these protesters were “largely silenced” and that “mainstream media” conspired to suppress their voices. I’d suggest the circulation of your article - and the fact we’re debating it now - undermines that claim.

I’d also note that if there was a coordinated MSM effort to suppress dissent, it was remarkably inconsistent. Murdoch-owned outlets make up a large share of the mainstream media, and they spent years giving airtime to anti-lockdown voices, vaccine sceptics, and civil liberties talking points - often from people with a shallow grasp of freedom and a tendency to apply it selectively.

No one is saying the COVID response was perfect. But rewriting a modest protest as a moment of epic civic resistance doesn’t clarify history. It distorts it. You’re free to express that view, but others are just as free to challenge the romanticism and factual gaps it contains.

That’s discourse, not censorship.

John Daysh,
If you’ve read this article as: wishing to honour the 300 lockdown protesters, by comparing them to Leonidas’ 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, in gathering for a defiant stand against a wannabe tyrant, in defence of Australia’s democracy and civil rights; then that’s perfect, and spot on. That’s exactly what I was aiming for.

Of course, there are differences. What was the same: their determination to make a stand, to demonstrate to Premier Andrews and his inner cabinet that, despite his despotic dreams and visions of complete power to govern over every inch of the daily lives of his constituents, he will still ultimately have someone to answer to.

The other main similarity between the 300 Spartans and the 300 brave Melburnians was their ability to inspire others to follow behind them. There were 300 on 4 September, the biggest anti-lockdown protest to that date. Then 1500 on Cup Day, 3 November, of which 400 were kettled and arrested by police, charged with ‘gathering in a group more than 10’. And finally about 12 months later, 20 November, 2021, 150,000 marched from Parliament to Flagstaff gardens.

The main question for me is, who had it right, the Premier with his total societal lockdown strategy, or the 300 protesters, who had the ability to see early in the piece how deleterious that strategy was, and how it was achieving nothing positive? With the benefit now of five years of reflection, I think you might be able to see how right they were in hindsight, which is why I felt to write something in their honour.

It was never a real pandemic. It was a successful propaganda exercise. But I fully agree with you that some commentators, such as Rowan Dean on Sky News were challenging the accepted narrative. I just disagree on the definition of ‘Mainstream Media’ (Sky?). I never said that the censorship was total, only that it was there, sometimes subtle, often not. I’m eternally thankful that OnlineOpinion remains such a champion of healthy free speech, for which COVID served to highlight how desperately we are in need.

I would have used the Eureka Stockade for comparison myself, as it demonstrated the true Aussie sprite of defiance in the face of Totalitarianism!

p/s The fact that there were no actual Aussies at Eureka is beside the point.

Michael,

Apologies for the delayed reply. I had missed it. I appreciate the clarity - and I genuinely mean that, because this reply confirms that your original article wasn’t just symbolic or emotionally reflective. It was revisionist history, written to elevate a fringe protest into a defining civic moment, despite what actually happened during that time.

You now say, plainly, that you believe COVID “was never a real pandemic” but merely a propaganda exercise. That belief puts you outside the realm of public health debate and deep into conspiracy territory. A pandemic that killed over 7 million people globally - and left many millions more with chronic illness - was not imaginary, nor was it a psy-op. It was a real, complex, global emergency.

The fact that you place greater faith in a handful of protesters than in the vast weight of global scientific, epidemiological, and public health expertise says everything.

As for who “had it right” - Premier Andrews or the protesters - the answer isn’t found in crowd size. 150,000 people can march for a cause. That doesn’t make it correct. There were huge crowds who supported Brexit. Or Trump. Or the invasion of Iraq. Large numbers don’t equal moral clarity, especially when whipped up by misinformation.

Sky News, Rowan Dean, and similar voices were not censored. They were platformed, daily, by some of the largest media conglomerates in the world. You don’t get to hold a megaphone in a stadium and then say you were silenced because the crowd didn’t all clap.

You’re free to honour whoever you like. But calling a modest, unauthorised protest the modern equivalent of Thermopylae doesn’t bring clarity. It brings distortion.

That’s not honour. That’s historical cosplay.

Paul1405
Thanks for reminding us about the Eureka Stockade, a central moment in defining our national character. Whenever we see the Eureka flag unfurled, it’s usually a sign that our government is once again shafting someone through one of their short-sighted and ill-conceived ventures.

Given the government’s heavy-handed response during COVID, the Eureka Stockade might well have served as a fitting symbol of resistance against authoritarian imposition. But for my article, having travelled to Greece last year, it was Leonidas and his Spartan warriors who came most vividly to front of mind.

As you suggest, Paul, COVID marked the first time society has tried to cure the common cold with totalitarianism instead of chicken noodle soup. You can only laugh when the supermarket was emptying the shelves of cans of soup, as too people were using them to get over COVID, rather than taking the prescribed jab.

Jokes aside, during the anti-lockdown protest on 21 August 2021, Victoria Police used firearms against civilian protesters for the first time since the Eureka Stockade in 1854. That day, photographer Matt Lawson was the first protester struck by a police-fired projectile in modern Australian history. From the film footage seen in the documentary Battleground Melbourne (https://battlegroundmelbourne.com/), it seemed Matt Lawson was fired upon for no reason other than a display of force by VicPol.

Following that, precisely four years ago today, 22 September 2021 is the day Victoria Police again fired rubber bullets to disperse peaceful demonstrators at The Shrine. And also, this was the same day we experienced an extremely unusual magnitude 5.9 earthquake, one of the largest earthquakes recorded in the state, adding an eerie layer to an already turbulent day. A rather strange period of our history.

Michael Viljoen

Hi Michael,

I suppose there are two sides to every story. A bit of irony when it comes to Eureka, those protesting authoritarian action against themselves, simmering tensions over gold prospecting licences and heavy handed action by police in enforcing the law. The same Europeans involved in Eureka were calling for stronger government action against the Chinese on the gold fields.

My experience with police violence goes back to my teenage days, and the Vietnam War protests. Police removing their badges before "arresting" passive protesters, using excessive force, and then laying trumped up charges, all politically motivated.

I was given a business card some time back by a fella I know. He claimed there was no Covid, and the vaccine was a mind controlling drug, it was all down to the work of the Illuminati. I thought he was a bit strange.

Michael,

I'm a little surprised to see you run with Paul’s comment so literally. His nod to the Eureka Stockade was laced with irony - especially his postscript about “no actual Aussies.” Your reply, though, treats it like a solemn baton-passing of national symbolism, alongside Thermopylae, Leonidas, and now a pandemic-era soup shortage.

The result is something closer to folk myth than historical reflection.

Your article already recast a modest protest as a symbolic act of national salvation. Now, you’ve added Eureka and even an earthquake for effect. It’s powerful storytelling, but not exactly rigorous history.

COVID wasn’t “the common cold.” It killed over 20,000 Australians and millions globally, overwhelmed ICUs, and left tens of thousands with long-term complications. No serious public health body in the world treated it like a seasonal nuisance, nor did chicken soup make a dent in transmission rates.

As for police tactics - yes, rubber bullets were used on 21 of August and again on 22nd September. That should be debated. But to equate that with Eureka - a fatal armed uprising - is to confuse civil disobedience with armed insurrection. And the fact that later protests attracted thousands without similar escalation suggests the early incidents were the exception, not the rule.

Finally, you again raise censorship - while referencing a widely distributed film, multiple media outlets, and now publishing freely here. If suppression was the goal, it failed spectacularly.

Discourse isn’t censorship, and myth isn’t memory. It’s perfectly fine to challenge the COVID response, but romanticising it into a legend of the 300 or Eureka doesn’t honour truth. It replaces it.

John Daysh,
I'm curious. You've just said, 'Finally, you again raise censorship'.

When in my last post did I raise censorship 'again'?

Let me try and understand your reasoning. If there’s a only a little or a lot of cencorship, you’re saying that the cencorship is not real, because it’s not totally successful.

So, for argument’s sake, if Facebook censors people in an unreasonable manner, and so people head off to ‘X’ to get their information in an uncencorerd manner, then that would mean that the Facebook cencorship wasn’t real, because the information wasn’t totally restricted but available elsewhere.

Is that what you’re suggesting?

I’ve never said that the cencorship was total, only that it was real.

My apologies, Michael. There's so much talk of censorship at the moment that I was getting myself muddled. I'll modify my last reply to allow for your correction:

Michael,

I'm a little surprised to see you run with Paul’s comment so literally. His nod to the Eureka Stockade was laced with irony - especially his postscript about “no actual Aussies.” Your reply, though, treats it like a solemn baton-passing of national symbolism, alongside Thermopylae, Leonidas, and now a pandemic-era soup shortage.

The result is something closer to folk myth than historical reflection.

Your article already recast a modest protest as a symbolic act of national salvation. Now, you’ve added Eureka and even an earthquake for effect. It’s powerful storytelling, but not exactly rigorous history.

COVID wasn’t “the common cold.” It killed over 20,000 Australians and millions globally, overwhelmed ICUs, and left tens of thousands with long-term complications. No serious public health body in the world treated it like a seasonal nuisance, nor did chicken soup make a dent in transmission rates.

As for police tactics - yes, rubber bullets were used on 21 of August and again on 22nd September. That should be debated. But to equate that with Eureka - a fatal armed uprising - is to confuse civil disobedience with armed insurrection. And the fact that later protests attracted thousands without similar escalation suggests the early incidents were the exception, not the rule.

Michael,

In my experience, whenever someone opens with, "Let me try and understand your reasoning," a strawman usually follows - and this time is no exception.

//If there’s only a little or a lot of censorship, you’re saying that the censorship is not real, because it’s not totally successful.//

That’s not even close.

I haven’t denied that censorship exists in any form. What I challenged was your framing of anti-lockdown voices as "largely silenced" or "suppressed by the mainstream media," as though their perspectives were forcibly erased from public discourse.

That simply doesn’t hold up. Those voices were regularly featured on Sky News, circulated widely on social media, echoed on talkback radio, debated in parliament - and crucially, published right here. Your article is proof of that.

Yes, moderation exists on platforms like Facebook. Sometimes it’s heavy-handed. Sometimes it’s clumsy or inconsistent. That’s a valid discussion. But content moderation - especially when it targets demonstrable misinformation during a public health crisis - isn’t automatically censorship in the Orwellian sense you’re implying. Nor does moving to a different platform mean you’ve been silenced. It means you're still speaking, just somewhere else.

Scale and intent matter. If I write a book and one shop refuses to stock it, that’s not censorship. If the government bans it nationwide, that’s censorship. Equating the two flattens the term until it loses meaning - or worse, becomes a shield against criticism.

And if your concern is truly about the suppression of speech, I hope you're just as worried about book bans, the intimidation of journalists, and the prosecution of whistleblowers - all of which pose a far deeper threat to free expression than the fact-checkers at Facebook ever could.

Hi John 1405,
You must be older than me to have first-hand experience of the Vietnam War protests. Police using excessive force, laying trumped up charges, and politically motivated. Wow, who would have thunk? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You say you met someone who disagreed with Covid being a real thing, that the vaccine was a mind control drug, and it was all down to the illuminati. Personally, I’ve mixed with a lot of anti-lockdown protesters, and I’ve met plenty that go well beyond that. Easy to find some who suggest the earth is flat, who question the Apollo moon landings, and much else besides. I’m not talking about the protest leaders, such as Topher Field or Harrison McLean, etc. who are eminently well-read and well-grounded. But it takes all types.

However, what we experienced during the Covid era was beyond imagining. It sent people a little crazy.

Even this week, Victoria’s CHO Brett Sutton was interviewed on 3AW. He admitted there was a long list of things he had gotten wrong. ‘There's no shying away from the fact that you can't get everything right, as I certainly didn't,’ he said. These mistakes were so evident to every man and his dog. Having to wear a mask in a café when standing up, but not when sitting down. How does any sane person take that seriously?

It was so crazy, that it made the ordinary person wonder what the government was really playing at. Keeping babies masked while in their early stages of speech development? Keeping adolescents caged in their bedrooms for months on end? Sorry, this is obviously is not for our health. It’s for something else. The whole thing encouraged conspiracy theories.

Believing Armstrong never walked on the moon, or that the earth is flat, is kooky, but believing that doesn’t hurt anyone else. Believing that you can close down the economy for months and years, and then just turn it on again with a flick of a switch is kookier, and this definitely did does hurt us all.

John Daysh,
Thanks for your clarification. With that I’d say our positions on censorship are mostly pretty much the same.

I’ve always agreed with you that the topic was often openly debated at the time, although I’d add that from many angles, or within certain spheres, only one view, that being the government line was permitted.

Both major parties in Australia, Morrison and all the state premiers, had bought into the strict lockdown strategy, almost without question for that whole era. Labor never has public dissention from within their ranks, and only a few hearty rebels within the Coalition (e.g. Craig Kelly) dared challenge their party line. So, politically Australia was always full-steam ahead on the SS Lockdown. And it was only those few from the Coalition, and a few others from minor parties that ensured any type of rigour within our parliamentary debate.

You agree with me that some forms of discussion were moderated. The moderation on social media you say was sometimes heavy-handed, clumsy or inconsistent. I’d say it’s clear how things became a lot more open after Elon Musk purchased X. But to those I know, who were prepared to put reasoned and sane argument, only to see their Facebook pages banned, or YouTube channels taken down, it certainly felt to them like censorship, as though their perspectives were being ‘forcibly erased from public discourse.’

Personally, I had posts withdrawn from my class forum at my tertiary college, for not toeing the government line. There were senior doctors who were deregistered by AHPRA after offering professional opinions which disagreed with the government line at the time, opinions that today would be considered perfectly vanilla and standard, but weren’t in line with the then strict jab policy.

So I’d agree with you that there was a certain amount of debate in the public realm, but it wasn’t always open, and not at all within 7, 9, 10, ABC or SBS. It was sometimes a real struggle, which is partly why protesters felt forced to spill out onto the streets in numbers where they couldn’t be ignored.

John Daysh.
300 arrived to stand in defiance at the Shrine on 5 September, 2020. A modest number? Yes, rather, in comparison to 150,000. Big oaks grow from little acorns.

You might think 150,000 is insignificant. But we’ve never had an AFL Grand Final with that number. Not even the Vietnam War protests had that number. Arguably the biggest number of people gathered together for any reason in Australia’s history whatsoever. But it’s not about numbers, they’re just statistics. It only takes one man to stand up to a bully, and give others the courage to follow. That’s called the power of one.

Here are songs written to honour the courage of the Melbourne protesters:

We found our kind
Watching the bullets fly
We will not comply
We are the lions
We will fight
‘Till we die
(From the song ‘Lions’, written by Mandy Wragg, recalling King Leonidas, popular among freedom protesters, 2021. Clearly, a mixture of fact and metaphor, if you can handle that.)

As we stared down
The barrel of their gun
They don’t even know
We’d already won
(From the song, ‘The Spirit of the Anzac’, written by Melbourne musician, Ivan Bancroft, 2022, after Victoria Police shot at peaceful protesters at Melbourne’s most sacred memorial.)

John, I said to you what’s important is who had it right. Even on 3AW this week, Victorian Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton expressed his regrets looking back, conceding many measures intended to stop the spread of Covid-19 were ‘probably never necessary’. No kidding. You admit that now? There were those with the wisdom to point this out at the time, but you wouldn’t listen.

We could debate this forever, if we were inclined. But what this really needed was a thorough enquiry. But our Labor and Liberal pollies who were in charge at the time desperately avoided any Royal Commission, as they know how they’d come out looking in hindsight.

John, thanks for your critique of my article. I know you don’t like it. But I’m genuinely satisfied that it accurately and honourably portrays those people involved.

Michael Viljoen

Hi Michael,

"The largest gathering in Australia occurred in Centennial Park, May 1932, where hundreds of thousands gathered in response to Jack Lang's dismissal from office". According to my Old Man, who was there on the day, he being a staunch "Langite", the number was put at 250,000, at a time when Sydney's population was about 1.2 million. In today's terms that would equate to 1 million people in the same place..

Michael,

I appreciated your previous post for its more grounded tone and the effort to find areas of agreement - but with this latest one, we’re back to poetic myth-making. Which is fine, if you’re writing folk ballads. But if you’re claiming historical record or political insight, then I’d suggest a little more caution with the metaphors.

We’re now equating a crowd at Flagstaff Gardens to the Spartans at Thermopylae and the Anzacs and the Eureka Stockade, while quoting protest songs about “bullets flying” and “we’ve already won.” I understand symbolism, truly. But symbolism shouldn’t become a substitute for accuracy.

You say 150,000 marched. That number is unverified and heavily disputed. Even the highest credible estimates put it well below that. To compare it to an AFL Grand Final or the Vietnam Moratorium without hard data is simply rhetorical inflation.

As for Sutton’s recent comments, yes, he acknowledged that some measures may not have been necessary. That’s not the same as declaring the pandemic response a mistake or vindicating early protests. Every public health strategy is revised in hindsight, that’s not proof that the protestors “had it right all along.” If you believe a few retrospective regrets = total vindication, then I fear you’re only listening for the notes that flatter your tune.

And finally, no, I don’t “dislike” your article. I disagreed with it. Strongly. But there’s a difference between disagreement and dislike. One is intellectual. The other is emotional. I’m doing my best to stick to the former. I’d ask the same in return.

Paul1405,
Thanks for reminding us about the significance of Jack Lang’s dismissal. Huge numbers gathered in support of Lang. How can we know the accurate numbers?

I’ve seen photos of the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Could that have been the biggest gathering of people ever for one event in Australia’s history? That was just a short time before the dismissal of the NSW Premier, two events linked in history, and the grand numbers that turned up for the Bridge opening would have been also due to the popularity of Jack Lang.

Previously, I’ve always wondered whether the Billy Graham Crusades in the late 1950s drew by the largest crowds in Australia’s history. I have one good friend in his 80s now who was present and dearly remembers those events at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. As there was no actual sport on the day, the people could spill out onto the playing surface, and so the estimated crowd in attendance was able to surpass the normal stadium capacity, to that of over 120,000, larger than the official attendance record for a football match, the 1970 VFL Grand Final.

John Daysh,
Thanks for being willing to critique what I’ve written, and your desire to see history written accurately and placed in proper perspective.

In my article, I quoted Topher Field as speaking in front of 150,000 people at Flagstaff Gardens in Melbourne, saying that. ‘Future generations are watching us. They are reading about this moment in a history book.’ Therefore I owe it to Topher Field, and to the future generations to be accurate in what I say.

One similar comparison between the Melbourne protesters on September 5, 2020, and Leonidas’ contingent in 480 BC is that there were 300 of them. This number was arrived at by independent verification.

As stated, I was not comparing the two events for the levels of violence, or that Leonidas’ men were a battle contingent facing overwhelming numbers, who knew that their fate would likely end in death. I was comparing them for their defiance, and bravery to stand up to a bully, in support of their independence and self-determination, and for their capacity to inspire greater numbers to follow behind them in support of their cause.

In my article, I did link a YouTube video which attempts to photograph large sections of the crowd as evidence. I remember one ABC article that quoted ‘at least 100,000’. Anything much over 100,000 would make it bigger than today’s AFL Grand Final.

These protests at Flagstaff Gardens in November 2021 were also linked to the Canberra protests of early 2022, inspired by the Canadian truckers who gathered in their capital, Ottawa, to protest compulsory ‘vaccines’, with similar protests in the New Zealand capital, Wellington. The tens of thousands in Canberra were admitted, even by the ABC, to be the largest protests in Canberra’s history, though the mainstream media were playing down these protests at the time, as none of the protesters were likely voting Labor or Liberal in the forthcoming 2022 Federal election.

The numbers were big, but as Paul1405 suggests, for comparison with the Lang dismissal or Vietnam War Moratoriums, we could perhaps consider the size of the population for proportionality.

John Daysh,
The events of the Lang Dismissal, or Whitlam’s dismissal in 1975, or Vietnam War protests, were all controversial. And the same with the events of the COVID era. Topher Field, as quoted in my article, believes these events will be read about by future generations.

But at least for the moment, there are differing views on the matter. Though I believe it’s reasonable to qualify the protesters on September 5 as those standing up for human rights, and standing against tyranny. The forced impositions and destructive nature of compulsory lockdowns and mandates against the will of so many ordinary people ere what made it so.

If the government were just giving health advice or recommendations, it would have been different. But our politicians and CHOs lost their heads in drunken power. So, just five years later, for Brett Sutton to turn around last week and say, ‘Maybe we will agree as a society that we never want to do that (lockdown) again,’ or say as he did, “There are other ways to manage stuff,’ is now inexcusable.

Anyone numerate with a modest IQ could have known this from early 2020. Their whole mismanagement was an epic, avoidable disaster, worthy of historical accountability.

Michael Viljoen

Hi Michael,

In the days when the population was much smaller, and transportation more difficult, its surprising what large numbers gathered for events, like those described. Sporting events would draw very large crowds. The Old Man was at both the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Centennial Park show of support for Lang. It was reported that 400,000 attended the Papal Mass led by Pope Benedict XVI at Randwick Racecourse for World Youth Day in 2008. This event was the largest gathering in Australia's history at the time, with hundreds of thousands more watching the event on large screens in nearby Centennial Park.

I stand corrected on Lang and 250,000 in 1932.

Just to add;

The Kumbh Mela, a Hindu religious festival in India, is the largest human gathering on Earth, with millions, and even hundreds of millions, of pilgrims participating over its 48-day duration, with the 2013 event in Prayagraj (Allahabad) drawing an estimated 30 million people

Michael,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I can see how meaningful this period is for you, and I agree that major civic disruptions deserve reflection. That’s why I’m cautious about how quickly protest can be elevated to myth, especially when the historical parallels being drawn are so dramatic.

Regarding the crowd size, I’m not doubting it was a significant turnout. It clearly was. But estimating numbers at protests is notoriously slippery, and while 150,000 is often cited, I’ve yet to see it verified by any independent source. For comparison, the Iraq War protest in Sydney drew around 250,000, and the Vietnam Moratoriums also pulled huge numbers. Those movements didn’t just make noise, they left a mark on policy and public memory in a way few others have.

Your comparison to the 300 Spartans makes more sense now that you’ve clarified it’s symbolic. I get the appeal - standing up to overwhelming force has a timeless pull - but I think we need to be careful not to let the metaphor overtake the moment. Leonidas’ men knowingly sacrificed themselves to hold off an invading army. The Melbourne protesters were opposing pandemic restrictions, however harsh they felt them to be. One can question those restrictions without turning defiance into heroism on the scale of Thermopylae.

You also suggest that leaders “lost their heads in drunken power” and that “anyone numerate with a modest IQ” should’ve known lockdowns were unnecessary. But at the time, COVID was novel, its transmission rapid, its death toll high, and its long-term effects uncertain. Most countries, left and right alike, took strong action - not out of authoritarian zeal but caution. Even Sweden has since admitted it underestimated the risks.

As for Brett Sutton’s recent comments, they reflect learning in hindsight, not villainy. If anything, they show the kind of accountability we should want in public officials.

I agree this era will be scrutinised by future generations. But whether these protests are remembered as brave or fringe will depend on how honestly we represent their claims, scale, and outcomes. If history matters, accuracy must matter just as much.

Hi John Daysh,
Sorry for the tardy response. I’ve been travelling through Central Africa on a work trip. Though I did want to respond to your latest remarks. Like you, I am concerned that historical matters be presented accurately.

I can appreciate that these events were complex, and so lend themselves to multiple interpretations and perspectives. But truth in history has its way of making itself plain. Someone earlier in this discussion got in trouble for quoting Ben Franklin a little out of context. Nevertheless, I’m willing to turn to Winston Churchill who gave us this definition of truth:

‘Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.’

Your last post put forward certain overall contentions which I don’t think can remain unchallenged. Firstly, you said that for COVID, the ‘death toll was high’, and secondly, that the governmental response was ‘cautious’. For those two propositions, I think nothing could be further from the truth.

I have previously asserted that COVID as a phenomenon was an overreaction propelled by errant propaganda. And I would contend that at its essence, that’s all it was and nothing more.

---

In 2008 I was living in Northern Cameroon. During that time the region underwent a period of paranoia, where people were suspected of using sorcery to affect what was called ‘penis stealing’. ‘Penis stealing’ was the widespread belief that there existed people using sorcery with malintent, who through means of body contact or touch, could steal someone else’s penis; either physically or in some other more mystical sense, could take away another person’s sexuality and render them sterile.

What the sorcerer stood to gain from this is totally mysterious. If you think this is difficult to understand, you would not be alone. Every aspect of this nonsense is totally inexplicable or mysterious. But that was part of the mystique. It was a fear of the unknown, growing into a rampant, widespread paranoia. ...

Whatever you might say about the realities, the fear was real. People were summarily killed in the street after being accused of touching someone with malintent. Others were jailed by civil courts after being accused. It was a little reminiscent of the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts, which was also a period of localised hysteria, but reached into all levels of society.

People of our region were afraid of touch or human contact, particularly with strangers. People were not shaking hands in the market. As with the Salem witch trials, this period of hysteria in Northern Cameroon lasted about a year until the unease eventually fizzled out and life went back to normal.

When the COVID paranoia surfaced in 2020, I had a sense of déja vu. I’ve experienced this before. It felt quite similar. Rampant fear of the unknown, and people afraid to touch one other. Irrational behaviour, widespread paranoia, reaching all levels of society. The major difference was that this was not localised, but quite international. But also in 2020 with COVID, you could sense how the fear was real and overwhelming. People were not thinking straight. Fight or flight reactions had taken over. I figured that like these other examples mentioned, it would also take about a year for people’s minds to settle down enough for them to think logically and reasonably again. In that sense I was wrong. It took longer than a year. It took more like two years before people slowly realised that they had been jumping at shadows. It was like people were all hypnotised at once, but then slowly woke up one at a time. Then again, many still haven’t really come to terms what actually went down.

It dawned on me the extent to which superstition was not limited only to the far reaches of Africa, but could potentially occur anywhere: whether it’s among those of the Sahel of Cameroon, or the puritans of New England (which produced both the civil thought of Yale and Harvard, and the panic of Salem) or even us right here, right now.

In saying, ‘anyone numerate with a modest IQ’ should have been able to see that our governmental COVID response was an overreaction, I was not meaning to be insulting. And I don’t claim for myself anything more than average IQ. But the inability of intelligent people to think calmly without being overwhelmed was understandable, given the media avalanche warning of impending calamity was so slick and crafted. For media and politicians alike, bad news sells, and it all funneled into a perfect storm.

But for any ordinary person viewing matters with calmness, the cracks in the narrative allowed the light to shine through. The inconsistencies were glaring. The British parliamentarians, those making the rules, revealed to be regularly evening partying at Westminster. Really?

Masks. The politicians flipped several times about their efficacy. But in the end that dirty cloth on the back seat prevailed and was made compulsory, the thin line separating life and death. Really?

In December 2021, I attended some of the 24/7 protest vigils on the steps of Parliament in Melbourne. For a photo of any COVID protest, you will never see a policeman not wearing a mask, 100%. Yet at 12am midnight on Parliament steps, I noticed that 100% of police on duty were not wearing masks. They had asked their Seargent for the night off. At midnight, there are no press photographers, so more relaxed rules apply. I could give countless examples of masks serving a publicity role with regards to the pandemic, helping spreading the fear. But deep down, the authorities knew they served no practical health purpose. But impressions were everything.

Parliamentary members of the Libertarian Party repeatedly requested the government to table their scientific justification relied upon to restrict liberties and enforce compulsory mask-wearing. Such justification was a necessary legal requirement. Yet the Victorian government never tabled any such evidence. They could not, for the reason that such scientific evidence does not exist. Try it. Look for any scientific paper suggesting a benefit to widespread mask-wearing to combat respiratory illness, anywhere in the world. Such a paper does not exist.

People have asked me, what was the impact of COVID in Africa. I would say it’s impact was a non-event. Why? Because people mostly don’t have televisions. It’s the same reason why the Amish in America weren’t affected. They are harder to influence by media. They have other problems to worry about, bigger fish to fry

Ordinary people using ordinary logic were slowly able to see through the avalanche of media hype. Just look around you, to the left or the right. Were people collapsing in the street? Do you know of people within your immediate circles who have suffered from this illness enough to justify these endless restrictions and impositions?

So what of the actual numbers? Many supposedly died of COVID. But people die of respiratory illness every year, especially the old and frail. So how was this year any different? News Flash! It wasn’t. The figures for respiratory illness deaths within the COVID years fell between what could be expected as normal variation for colds and flu and similar. I would go as far as to say that, with a comparable level of surprise and comparable media campaign, the 2020-21 COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ could have been programmed to have happened in any year, the figures were that unremarkable.

Has science suffered because of this? No. I would say faith in our scientific, governmental, and media institutions has taken a hit. But true science is based on testing evidence. I once saw a copy of the booklet, the ‘Victorian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza,’ ratified by then Health Minister Jenny Mikakos in October 2019. It was based on tested scientific principles built up over decades, and contained no mention of masks or any compulsory lockdowns.

Unfortunately, when panic set in, this sensible document was thrown in the bin, and a radical Chinese-style lockdown model was enforced. Most jurisdictions around the world followed suit, except for a few, such as Sweden, which had a similar planned response booklet to ours. This is why no-lockdown Sweden faired the best of all OECD countries with regard to excess deaths for 2020-21

"‘anyone numerate with a modest IQ’ should have been able to see that our governmental COVID response was an overreaction" Hindsight is a wonderful thing, almost as good as foresight. I have an IQ of 130+ measured by the European standard, but at the time of the Covid pandemic I believed the governments of Australia acted in the best interests of the people, still do. The response was not perfect, mistakes were made, again with hindsight, but Australia got through it, and we have moved on.

Some might think Jonas Salk was an evil communist for developing the polio vaccine, but it has saved millions of lives, evil communist or not!

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't be so flippant as to describe the deaths from Covid in Africa as a "non-event", 'ALL LIVES MATTER' the official figure was put at over 250,000. The official figure is probably an unreliable low number, as many deaths would go unreported. I don't believe television cased covid, one of over 200 respiratory virus and variations known to man. I understand your concern with Covid, calling the restrictions, "radical Chinese-style lockdown".

Not sure Sweden is a good example, at May 2023 Sweden had reported 24,000 Covid deaths in a population of 10.5 million, their next door neighbour Norway had reported 5,200 deaths in a population of 5.5 million, per capita about half that of Sweden. I think I'll put the Swedish myth in the same category with the Illuminati (caused Covid) myth.

Paul1405,
Thanks for your comments on my posting.

I said a lot of things, perhaps too much. In all that I said, I was never being flippant about people dying. Or, if I gave that impression, then I ought simply to clarify.

I agree that ‘all lives matter’. But unfortunately, people do die, by the many thousands every year.
My argument was that the statistics on death from respiratory illness during the Covid years, whether in Sweden, or Africa, or anywhere else were all within the normal expected annual numbers and seasonal variation.
Every year thousands of people die of colds and influenzas.
The numbers in those years were not remarkable.
The difference was the branding, being labelled as COVID-19 deaths rather than anything else.
Take away the hype and publicity, and it would not have been noticed as an abnormal time period.

Yes, the Covid lockdowns were overly harsh and restrictive. But that was not my main point.
My point was that the lockdowns were totally and utterly unnecessary, as demonstrated by the Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza booklet, which was ratified by Victorian Health Minister Jenny Mikakos in October 2019.

I wish to thank the 300 who stood before The Shrine on 5 September, 2020, for their wisdom and insight in being capable of seeing these facts at the time, without needing the benefit of hindsight.
Without these people who stood at that timely moment, we would not now be able to so clearly reflect on the mismanagement and harm done by our governmental bodies, as those such as CHO Brett Sutton are now (recently, in September 2025) contemplating in their regretful tones, ‘Maybe we will agree as a society that we never want to do that [lockdown] again.’

Yep, thanks Brett.

Michael Viljoen